Karnataka

Kolar

CC/23/2014

N.Sekaran, - Complainant(s)

Versus

BEML Co-Op. Society Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Rajesh Shetty

08 Oct 2015

ORDER

Date of Filing: 24/05/2014

Date of Order: 08/10/2015

BEFORE THE KOLAR DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, D.C. OFFICE PREMISES, KOLAR.

 

Dated: 08^th DAY OF OCTOBER 2015

PRESENT

SRI. N.B. KULKARNI, B.Sc., LLB,(Spl.)    …….    PRESIDENT

SRI. R. CHOWDAPPA, B.A., LLB               ……..    MEMBER

SMT. A.C. LALITHA, BAL., LLB         ……  LADY MEMBER

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO :: 23 OF 2014

Sri. N. Sekaran,

S/o. Natraj,

Aged About 60 years,

No.530, Italian Mess Quarters,

Opp. Murthy Gas, Oorgaum Post,

K.G.F. – 563 121.

Kolar District.

(Rep. by Sriyuth. P.N. Sreenath, Advocate)                ….  Complainant.

 

- V/s -

1) BEML Cooperative Society Limited,

Maharaja Road, Robertsonpet Post,

K.G.F-563 122.

 

2) The Secretary,

BEML Cooperative Society Limited,

Maharaja Road, Robertsonpet Post,

KGF-563 122.

(OP Nos.1 & 2 are represented by

Sriyuth. P. Raghavan, Advocate)                            …. Opposite Parties.

-: ORDER:-

BY SRI. N.B. KULKARNI, PRESIDENT

01.   The complainant having submitted the complaint on hand as envisaged Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred in short as “the Act”) has sought, reliefs against these Ops jointly and severally, for recovery of sum of Rs.4,44,000/- together with interest at the rate of 10.25% P.A., as well, for direction to the OPs to pay the said FD amount with an interest at the rate of 18% P.A. and for payment of Rs.5,00,000/- towards damages for causing mental agony, inconvenience and deficiency in service and for Rs.50,000/- towards cost of the litigation.

 

02.   The facts in brief:-

It is contention of the complainant that, OP-1 is the cooperative society of which OP-2 is the secretary.  And that this OP-1 has been running a business of banking under the name and style as mentioned in the cause-title above.  And that he being employee of the BGML company had opted for voluntary retirement.  And that this company had settled the compensation amount.  And that subsequently the said company came to be wound-up. 

 

(a)    Further it is contended that, as the OPs came forward with an offer of payment of interest at the rate of 10.25% per annum for the deposit to be made, he opted for the same.  And that on 07.11.2007 he deposited sum of Rs.3,00,000/-, on 26.09.2007 he deposited sum of Rs.1,50,000/-, on 12.03.2007 he deposited sum of Rs.90,000/-.  And that thus he had made total deposit of Rs.5,40,000/- which amount was so deposited for the period of two years.  And that this deposit was to carry interest at the said rate of 10.25% per annum.

 

(b)    Further it is contended that, interest in sum of Rs.28,000/- was paid for FD of Rs.3,00,000/-, and sum of Rs.68,000/- was came to be paid in respect of FD amount of Rs.1,50,000/-.  And with regard to the said deposit in a sum of Rs.90,000/- no interest was paid.  Further it is contended that, he had received an amount of Rs.5,000/- on 15.04.2013 and a sum of Rs.3,000/- on 10.02.2011.  Thus the complainant has come up with this complaint on hand seeking the above set out reliefs.

 

(c)    Along with the complaint on 24.05.2014 the complainant has submitted Xerox copies of six documents with list which are as hereunder:-

(i) Fixed Deposit certificate for Rs.3,00,000/-

(ii) Fixed Deposit Certificate for Rs.1,50,000/-

(iii) Fixed Deposit certificate for Rs.90,000/-

(iv) The legal Notice issued by the complainant dated: 06.05.2014

(v) The postal acknowledgement served on OP-1

(vi) the postal acknowledgement served on OP-2.

 

03.   In response to the notices served the Ops have put in their appearance through their said learned counsel and have submitted written version resisting the claim of the complainant in toto.

 

(a)    It is specifically contended that, as the complainant is a member of the society as per provisions of Bye-law No.6 and Section 70 A of the Karnataka Cooperative Society Act this Forum lacks jurisdiction to entertain this complaint.  And that the administrator has taken over the administration of the society as per the appointment made by the Government vide provisions of Under Section 30 & 30 A of the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act.

 

(b)    It is also contended that, the complainant has regularly been paid interest up to 31.12.2011.  And that it had called for meeting of all depositors and members and had expressed inability to repay the entire deposited amount in lump-sum.  And that the reasons for the same were as heavy loan was taken from DCC Bank and the said loan account came to be closed before time thus an unexpected event which was unforeseen happened.

 

(c)    And that because of the earlier decision of the Government salary deductions and installments came to be abruptly stopped.  And that many borrowers being the statement government employees had either gone on transfer or were dead or were terminated from service.  And that their debts became doubtful debts.  And that the liability could not be reflected in last pay certificate.  And that the salary of staff of the education department was concerned the same was being disbursed by BEO and same came to be changed to clusters and again the system came to be reverted.  And that on formation of Chikkaballapur District erstwhile Kolar District came to be split of its entire administration and borrowers from Chikkaballapur District were dodging and were not paying the installments regularly.  And that the management of BEML, KGF permitted Bharat Earth Movers Employees Association (BEMEA) the official union, to give loans to the employees and the deductions for which loans were given preference as against the outstanding loan of this society.  So contending dismissal of the complaint has been sought.

 

04.   The very complainant has submitted his affidavit evidence and with Memo dated: 08.08.2014 has submitted Xerox copies of duplicate certificates issued by the OPs with regard to deposited sums of Rs.90,000/- and Rs.1,50,000/- as well Rs.3,00,000/-.

 

05.   On behalf of the OPs the OP-2 being the secretary has submitted his affidavit evidence.

 

06.   On 20.04.2015 written arguments on behalf of the complainant have been submitted.  On 07.10.2015 the learned counsel appearing for the complainant with Memo has submitted Xerox copies of following citations:-

(i) III 2005 CPJ 92 NC

(ii) 2003 SC Civil 92/98 judgment dated: 11.12.2003.

 

07.   On 10.06.2015 written arguments on behalf of the OP-2 came to be submitted with Memo with Xerox copies of following three citations:-

(i) Mysore High Court 1964 – Page 427

(ii) Mysore High Court 1963 – Page 294

(iii) Karnataka High Court 2003 – 311

 

08.   Again on 01.07.2015 the learned counsel appearing for the OPs had submitted written arguments with Memo with Xerox copies of two Documents:-

(i)       Minutes dated: 15.08.2008 passed in the meeting of depositor holder.

(ii)      Minutes dated: 19.12.2010 passed in the meeting of depositor holder.

 

09.   On 29.07.2015 the learned counsel appearing for the OPs has submitted Xerox copies of the minutes and attendance of the meeting of deposit holders and society on 19.12.2010. 

 

10.   On 07.10.2015 heard the oral arguments as advanced by the learned counsel for both sides.  On this day the learned counsel appearing for the OPs has submitted Memo indicating that, he was to rely on the following citations:-

(i) State of Karnataka –V/s- Vishwa Bharathi House Building Cooperative Society & Other - Judgment dated: 17.04.2003.

(ii)  The Paradip Port Trust, Rep. by its Chairman –V/s- State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Orissa, Cuttack & another – Judgment Dated: 10.03.2011 (ORISHC).

(iii) The Gujarat State Consumer Protection Centre and Another – V/s- General Insurance Corporation of India & Others – Judgment Dated: 24.02.2005 (NCRC).

 

11.   At this juncture itself it is observed that, only the citations are indicated without producing copies of the said judgments.  As such this District Forum is prevented from applying the principles enunciated in the said citations.

 

12.   Therefore the points that do arise for our consideration in this case are:-

1. Whether this forum has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint on hand?

 

2.   If so, whether the OPs are guilty of deficiency in service?

 

3.   To what relief the complainant is entitled to?

 

4.  What order?

 

13.   Findings of this District Forum on the above stated points for the following reasons are:-

 

POINT 1:     In the Affirmative.

 

POINT 2:     In the Affirmative.

 

POINT 3:     The complainant is held entitled to recover sum of Rs.4,44,000/- together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from 24.05.2014 being the date of the complaint till realization from the OP Nos. 1 & 2 jointly and severally.

 

POINT 4:     As per final order for the following:-

 

REASONS

POINT 1:-

14.   It is indisputable that the complainant was/is member of the OP-1 being a cooperative society.  It is also indisputable that on the said dates the said sums came to be deposited by the complainant with these OPs.  It is also indisputable that the said rates of interest were agreed to be paid by the OPs to the complainant on such deposits.  Thus taking shelter Under Section 70 of the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act and as for the principles enunciated in ILR 1967 Mysore Page 427, 1963 (2) Mysore LJ – Page 294, and A.I.R. 2003 Karnataka Page 310 and 311, the learned counsel appearing for OPs did maintain that the nature of the dispute being civil in the presence of said provisions and principles this District Forum lacked jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as the complainant could never be termed as the consumer.

 

15.   As against the said submissions the learned counsel appearing for the complainant by placing reliance of principles enunciated in III 2005 CPJ 92 NC and 2003 SC Appeal (Civil) 92/98 Judgment dated: 11.12.2003 maintained that the provisions of section 70 of the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act will not come in to play and as the complainant though member of cooperative society run by the OP-1 could also be a consumer as per the provisions of the Section 2(1)(d) of the Act the complaint is maintainable.

 

16.   Since the principles enunciated in the citations as relied by the learned counsel appearing for the complainant are applicable to the case on hand, the principles enunciated in the said citations as relied by the learned counsel appearing for the OPs are inapplicable.  Consequently, it is held that, the complainant is the consumer in spite of the fact that he was/is member of the cooperative society run by OPs.  Therefore there is no escape from holding that the present complaint is tenable.

 

POINT 2 & 3:-

17.   To avoid repetition in reasonings and as these points do warrant common course of discussion, the same are taken up for consideration at a time. 

 

(a)    For the reasons noted above, the said deposits on said dates on the part of the complainant with these OPs are indisputable.  Equally it is indisputable with regard to the rate of interest that was bound to be paid by the OPs to the complainant on said deposits.  The only defense resorted to by the OPs is that, as per the minutes dated: 19.12.2010 drawn in the meeting of the society and it is shareholders/depositors the present complainant among others had agreed to waive the interest.  In case this version is to be believed, as rightly argued by the learned counsel appearing for the complainant, the OPs ought to have refunded the principal amount at a stretch.  If not, at least OPs ought to have repaid the principal amount to the complainant in installments at least.  Neither has been done. 

 

(b)    Therefore when the very OPs are not adhering to their own commitment vide said minutes, the proceedings drawn by way of said minutes in the said meeting would lose any significance.  Consequently, the OPs cannot disown their liability to repay the present complainant the said sum of Rs.4,44,000/- together with interest as agreed.  The in-action on the part of the OPs to discharge the liability would tantamount to deficiency in service.  Therefore we are of the definite opinion that, the OPs are liable to pay the interest for the said sum of Rs.4,44,000/- at the rate of 9% per annum which shall be by way of damages from 24.05.2014 being the date of the complaint till realization, jointly and severally. 

 

POINT 4:-

18.   We proceed to pass the following:-

 

 

 

 

08.10.2015:-

COMPLAINANT/BY SRI.

OPPOSITE PARTY/BY SRI.

ORDER

01.   For foregoing reasons the present complaint stands allowed with costs of Rs.3,000/- against these OPs as hereunder:-

 

(a) The complainant is held entitled to recover a sum of Rs.4,44,000/- together with interest @ 9% p.a. from 24.05.2014 being the date of the complaint till realization from the OP Nos.1 & 2 jointly and severally.

 

(b)    We grant time of one month to the OPs to comply the order from the date of communication of it.

 

(02)  Send a copy of this order to both parties free of costs.

 

(Dictated to the Stenographer in the Open Forum, transcribed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us on this 08^th DAY OF OCTOBER 2015)

 

 

 

 

 

MEMBER                             MEMBER                     PRESIDENT