BEFORE THE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANGALORE
Dated this the 12th December 2016
PRESENT
SMT. C.V. SHOBHA : HONBLE PRESIDENT
SMT.LAVANYA M. RAI : HONBLE MEMBER
COMPLAINT NO.119/2015
(Admitted on 31.03.2015)
Ramesh. A,
S/o Chandrashekara Gowda,
Aged about 36 years,
Residing at Amai House,
Bilinele village, Nettana Post,
Puttur Taluk, D.K 574230.
……… Complainant
(Advocate for Complainant by Sri. TP)
VERSUS
Bilinele Co operative Agricultural Society Ltd,
No/608. Nettana Post, Bilinele Village,
Puttur Taluk, D.K. 574230.
Represented by its Chief Executive Officer.
…. Opposite Party
(Advocate for Opposite Party by Sri. KBA)
ORDER DELIVERED BY HONBLE MEMBER
SMT. LAVANYA M. RAI
- 1. This complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act alleging deficiency in service as against the opposite party claiming certain reliefs.
- The brief facts of the case are as under:
The complainant is the member of the Opposite Party society had invested the amount in Opposite Party society. The complainant is a poor farmer residing in a small hut and after selling the agricultural product he has invested the money for the purpose of construct a new house. The complainant has started to lay foundation for new house and at that time due to shortage of funds the complainant approached the Opposite Party in the September 2014 for pre matured withdrawal of the F.D amount of rupees 50,000/ invested in Opposite Party society. Then Opposite Party told to put signature on back side of the F.D Receipt hence complainant put his signature and handed over it to the Opposite Party. That the Opposite Party after calculating the interest on the back side of the F.D Receipt handed over it alleging that there is no provision for pre-mature withdrawal and directed to present it on its maturity. That on the maturity of F.D on 27.10.2014 the complainant met the Opposite Party and demanded the matured Fixed Deposit Amount. Then the Opposite Party told that there is no ready cash and requested to come on next day hence on 28.10.2014 while the complainant met the Opposite Party he has refused to repay the matured F.D amount alleging that there is no such F.D in his society. Therefore complainant issued legal notice on 29.10.2014 to the Opposite Party by demanding for refund of the F.D along with its interest. Even after receipt of the legal notice the Opposite Party has neither paid the amount nor gave any response. Hence the above complaint filed under section 12 of the C.P.Act 1986(here in after referred to as the Act) seeking direction from this For a to give direction to the Opposite Party to pay Rs. 50,000/ as per F.D. Receipt No. 1777 along with 15% interest from 27.10.2014 till payment and also pay compensation and cost of the proceedings.
- Version Notice served to the opposite party by RPAD, Opposite party appeared through their counsel and filed version stating that the complainant approached the Opposite Party in the month of September 2014 for premature withdrawal of F.D amount of Rs. 50,000/. It is denied the Opposite Party told to put signature on the backside of the F.D. and hand over the same to the Opposite Party. The Opposite Party had not told there is no provision for premature withdrawal and directed to present it on its maturity date. Further submitted that one Mrs. Rosamma was working as a cashier under the Opposite Party. The complainant paid the amount to the said Rosamma. The said Rosamma without making entry in the cash book, misappropriated the said amount. The complainant on 29.092014, given a complaint against the said Mrs. Rosamma to the Assistant Registrar of Co Opposite Party societies for misappropriation of the amount and requested the ARCS to conduct enquiry against the said Smt. Rosamma. The management of the Opposite Party, as per their Board Resolution dated 30.09.2014, issued a show cause notice and suspended Smt. Rosamma. The suspension was challenged by the said Smt. Rosamma and the ARCS, Puttur, stayed the suspension order on 10.10.2014. Hence, the dispute regarding the misappropriation of Rs. 50,000/ and other amounts is pending before the ARCS, Puttur for adjudication. Further, the enquiry initiated against the said Smt. Rosamma is also pending. The F.D. amount of the complainant is misappropriated by the said Smt. Rosamma, Ex Cashier of the Opposite Party. Hence, this Opposite Party is not liable to pay any amount to the complainant.In support of the complainant One Mr. Ramesh.A (CW1) the complainant filed affidavit reiterating what has been stated in the complaint and produced the document same has marked as Ex C1 to C3. One Mr. Eliyanna Gowda, (RW1) The Secretary, of opposite party filed counter affidavit and answered the interrogatories and produced the document marked Ex R1 to R12.
- In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this case are as under 1. Whether the complainant proves that there is a deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party? 2. If so, for what relief and from whom the complainant entitled? 3. What order?
We have considered the notes/oral arguments submitted by the learned counsel and also considered the materials that was placed before this Forum and answer the points are as follows:.
Point No. (i) to (ii): As per Affirmative
Point No. (iii): As per the final order.
REASONS
- POINTS No. (i) to (iii): it is undisputed fact that the complainant is the member of the Opposite Party society and invested the amount in F.D at Opposite Party society, which shows in Ex C1. Due to shortage of fund the complainant approached the Opposite Party for pre matured withdrawal of the F.D amount of Rs. 50,000/ invested the Opposite Party society. Thereafter Opposite Party took signature of the complainant on back side of the F.D receipt. After calculating the interest on the back side of the F.D receipt handed over it to the complainant and said that there is no provision for pre-matured withdrawal and directed to present it on its maturity. Thereafter on the maturity date Opposite Party refused to repay the F.D. amount alleging that there is no such F.D. in the society. On perusal of the evidence as well as the documentary evidence Ex C1 shows that complainant deposited the amount before the Opposite Party society. To prove not paid the F.D. amount the complainant issued notice to Opposite Party same is marked as Ex C2. On the other hand Opposite Party contended that the amount misappropriated by the CEO of the society by name one Rosamma hence she is liable for the same and the dispute is pending before the ARCS Puttur for adjudication. Further stated that the amount of Rs.50,000/ was misappropriated by Smt. Rosamma was paid cash by the complainant. Hence Opposite Party is not held responsibility in the above said amount and same is recovered from the Rosamma. The Ex R1 to R12 shows that there is a misappropriation in the Opposite Party society. Further Opposite Party never disputed that the complainant has not deposited the amount, but contended that his employees of the Opposite Party done mistake hence Opposite Party is not held responsible. In this case we also noticed that the complainant surrendered the F.D. receipt before the CEO of the Opposite Party society. The Opposite Party contended that the misappropriation of money enquire pending before the ARCS Puttur for adjudication hence the Opposite Party is not liable for the same the above said Rosamma is personally liable for the same hence recovery of decreetal amount from the said Rosamma not for the Opposite Party. After perusal of the document Ex R4, R5, R6 and R9 it reveals that there is a mis appropriation in the Opposite Party society regarding the above said F.D. hence the society itself response for the said amount. At the time of filing reply affidavit of Opposite Party agreed that the Board of director of the society appointed Rosamma as permanent employee. Hence the employee done any mistake it is the bounden duty of the employee to refund the amount. Further enquiry initiating against the above said Rosamma is the misappropriation of amount which is not connected to the case in our hand.For the above said contention we are of the opinion that the case in our hand is that Opposite Party committed deficiency in service but it is true that after perusal of the oral as well as documentary evidence it is proved that there is deficiency in service committed by the Opposite Party society.In view of the above, we hold that the Opposite Party is directed to pay the matured F.D of Rs.50,000/ as per F.D Receipt No.1777 along with rate of 10% interest from the date of maturity till the date of payment. Further pay compensation of Rs. 10,000/ as inconvenience, and mental agony and to pay Rs.5,000/ as cost of the proceedings. Payment shall be made within 30 days from the receipt of this order.
In the result, accordingly we pass the following Order:
ORDER
The complaint allowed. The Opposite Party is directed to pay the matured F.D of Rs.50,000/(Rupees fifty thousand only) as per F.D Receipt No.1777 along with at the rate of 10% interest from the date of maturity till the date of payment. Further pay compensation of Rs.10,000/(Rupees ten thousand only) and to pay Rs.5,000/(Rupees five thousand only) as cost of the proceeding. Payment shall be made within 30 days from the receipt of this order. In case of failure to pay the above mentioned amount with in the stipulated time, the opposite parties are directed to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the above said total amount from the date of failure till the date of payment.
Copy of this order as per statutory requirements, be forwarded to the parties and therefore the file shall be consigned to record room.
(1 to 7 pages dictated to the Stenographer typed by him, revised and pronounced in the open court on this the 12th of December 2016)
MEMBER PRESIDENT
(SMT. LAVANYA M.RAI) (SMT. C.V.SHOBHA)
D.K. District Consumer Forum D.K. District Consumer Forum
Mangalore. Mangalore.
ANNEXURE
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant:
CW 1: Mr. Ramesh.A
Documents marked on behalf of the Complainant:
Ex.C1: Dated: 26.10.2013 Original fixed deposit No.1777 for a sum of Rs.50,000/ issued by the Opposite Party.
Ex.C2: Dated: 29.10.2014 Office copy of the legal notice issued by the Complainant.
Ex.C3: Dated: 30.10.2014 Original Postal Acknowledgement.
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Parties:
RW 1: Mr. Eliyanna Gowda,
Documents marked on behalf of the Opposite Parties:
Ex.R1: 27.09.2014: Copy of the complaint by A.Ramesh, to the Opposite Party.
Ex.R2: 26.10.2014: Copy of the reply by Opposite Party to the complainant.
Ex.R3: 29.09.2014: Copy of the Notice to Smt.Rosamma.
Ex.R4: 07.10.2014: Copy of the reply given by Smt.Rosamma.
Ex.R5: 09.10.2014: Copy of the notice to the Ex.Chief Executive Mr.A.S. Thimmappa Gowda.
Ex.R6: 13.10.2014: Copy of the reply by A.S.Thimappa Gowda.
Ex.R7: 29.09.2014: Copy of the complaint given by the complainant to ARCS, Puttur.
Ex.R8: 30.09.2014: Copy of the Charge sheet to Smt. Rosamma.
Ex.R9: 07.10.2014: Copy of the reply to the above charge sheet by Smt.Rosamma.
Ex.R10: 09.10.2014: Copy of the dispute filed by Smt. Rosammabefore the ARCS, Puttur to stay the suspension order.
Ex.R11: 20.10.2014: Copy of the written statement filed by the Opposite Party before the ARCS, Puttur.
Ex.R12: 10.10.2014: Copy of the suspension stay order by the ARCS, Puttur.
Dated: 12.12.2016. MEMBER
