CC Filed on 20.07.2009
Disposed on 14.01.2011
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLAR.
Dated: 14th day of January 2011
PRESENT:
Sri. G.V.HEGDE, President.
Sri. T.NAGARAJA, Member.
Smt. K.G.SHANTALA, Member.
---
Consumer Complaint No. 53/2009
Between:
Sri. T.S. Panduranga Raju, Since dead by LRs, Naveen Raju T.P and Deepa T.P., No. 1496, 1st Floor, 3rd Cross, II Block, Vishwapriya Layout, Bagur, Bangalore – 560 068. (By Advocate Sri. H. Pavana Chandra Shetty) V/S 1. Earth Movers Employees House Building Co-Operative Society Ltd., Kolar, Near Railway Station, Opp. District B.C.M, Kolar District, Kolar – 563 101. Rep. by its President. 2. Earth Movers Employees House Building Co-Operative Society Ltd., Kolar, Near Railway Station, Opp. District B.C.M, Kolar District, Kolar – 563 101. Rep. by its Secretary (By Advocate Sri. Sama Rangappa) | ….Complainant ….Opposite Parties |
| |
ORDERS
This is a complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying for a direction against the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- with interest at 21% per annum and to pay Rs.1,00,000/- compensation with costs etc.,
2. The material facts of the case as made out from the complaint and version of opposite parties and the documents produced by parties may be stated as follows:
The opposite parties - Earth Movers Employees Credit Co-Operative Society Ltd., Kolar is a society registered under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act 1959. The society was authorized to collect the deposits from members and non-members as per the approved by-law. Accordingly the complainant-late T.S. Pandurangaraju deposited the amount/s as stated below.
Sl. No. | Receipt No. & Date | FD Amount in Rs. |
1 | 1443 08.06.2000 | Rs.2,00,000/- |
2 | 1546 18.05.2001 | Rs.1,50,000/- |
3 | 1659 06.01.2003 | Rs.1,00,000/- |
It appears at the time of filing the complaint the original depositor-late T.S. Pandurangaraju is dead and his son and daughter have signed the complaint.
3. The opposite parties have admitted the receipt of deposits from the original deposit holder T.S. Pandurangaraju. They contended that during the lifetime of T.S. Pandurangaraju the following amounts have been paid and the voucher were obtained.
Rs.2,00,000/- on 12.10.2000 under voucher No. 119, Rs.1,00,000/- on 20.03.2003 under voucher No. 255, Rs.50,000/- on 24.03.2003 under voucher No. 262. Therefore they contended that the deposits of Rs.2,00,000/- dated 08.06.2000 and the deposit of Rs.1,00,000/- dated 06.01.2003 were fully discharged and in respect of deposit of Rs.1,50,000/- dated 18.05.2001 a sum of Rs.50,000/- has already been paid and the balance payable is only Rs.1,00,000/-. Further they contended that the interest on the deposits was being made to the depositor on every month as agreed till 30.04.2005.
But on the other hand the LRs of complainant pleaded that no interest was received and they had not stated regarding the payments alleged to have been made to their father on 12.10.2000, 20.03.2003 and 24.03.2003. However the Learned Counsel for LRs of complainant had admitted during the course of proceedings when question regarding the payments alleged by OPs, that the interest payable on the deposits was received till 31.03.2005.
The opposite parties produced cash book extract and the voucher No. 255 dated 20.03.2003 for having paid Rs.1,00,000/-. It is submitted that the other two vouchers namely voucher No. 119 dated 12.10.2000 for Rs.2,00,000/- and voucher No. 255 dated 20.03.2003 for Rs.1,00,000/- were misplaced and they could not be searched.
4. The opposite parties contended that the present complaint is not maintainable under CP Act and the remedy should be under Section 70 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act 1959 and that the complaint is not maintainable without issue of notice under section 125 of the said Act. These contentions were found to be untenable after scrutiny of the recent rulings on the said matters. Therefore the learned counsel for opposite party did not press these grounds.
The learned counsel for opposite parties submitted that major portion of deposits received by different members, were diverted to Earth Movers Employees House Building Co-Operative Society Ltd., Kolar and were invested for formation of layout/house sites proposed for allotment to the members of the said housing society and the formation of layout could not be completed within time because of some unforeseen litigation and that some of the borrowers of the society defaulted in repaying the loans borrowed by them, therefore the society could not repay the deposits within time. Therefore he submits there is no deficiency in service. He also submitted that on completion of layout work the Housing society can repay the deposit amounts borrowed from Credit Co-Operative Society and that layout work would be completed within short time. He also submitted that for earlier period the interest has been paid at higher rate up to 31.03.2005, therefore the subsequent interest may be charged at 6% per annum.
5. The learned counsel for the opposite parties also submitted that the credit co-operative society as well as house building co-operative society are run by the same management committee and many employees of BEML are members of both societies and that the housing society has purchased lands measuring 9 acre 23½ guntas in survey No.82 to 86, 88, 89, 92 and 94 of Petechamanahalli village, Kasaba Hobli, Kolar Taluk to form the layout and in the present market value the housing society is going to get huge amount by sale of the sites and the housing society will utilize the said amount for repayment to different deposit holders. Further he submitted that the amount to be realized by sale of house sites deducting the expenses to be incurred for formation of layout, may be subjected to charge for repayment of the amounts due to the deposit holders.
6. From the rival contentions the following points arise for our consideration:
Point No.1: Whether the OPs have proved the payments
of deposits alleged by them?
Point No.2: What shall be the rate of interest from 01.04.2005
on the deposits which were not returned?
Point No.3: To what order
7. After considering the records and submissions of parties our findings on the above points are as follows:
Point No.1: The payment of Rs.1,00,000/- under voucher No. 255 dated 20.03.2003 is proved by producing the voucher as well as the cash book extract. This voucher clearly shows that amount of Rs.1,00,000/- was refunded to T.S. Panduranga Raju (complainant) towards refund of fixed deposit. This voucher is signed by T.S. Panduranga Raju as the person who received the amount of Rs.1,00,000/-. The entry in the cash book is also carried forward to Ledger. However in respect of two other payments voucher No. 255 and voucher No. 262 were not produced. It is submitted that these vouchers were misplaced and could not be traced. We secured the original cash book and the ledger to verify whether they were kept in the ordinary course of business or not and whether the entries were made on the date to-day basis. On verification of cash book we found that the entries made in the cash book regarding voucher No. 255 and voucher No. 262 cannot be doubted. It appears to us that the entries in respect of these vouchers were made in the cash book in the usual course of business. Therefore we think even in the absence of these vouchers entries in the cash book and ledger can be believed. The LRs of complainant could not have the personal knowledge whether their father had received these amounts are not. Considering the above facts we hold that the payments alleged by OPs can be believed. They have already received the interest payable upto 31.03.2005 on the deposit which was overdue. Therefore we hold that the balance deposit payable by OPs is Rs.1,00,000/- does not Rs.4,50,000/- as contended by that. Hence point No.1 is held accordingly.
Point No.2: In other similar cases considering the financial status of the OP-society we awarded interest at 7% p.a. from 12.04.2005. Hence in this case also we allow the same rate of interest on the balance deposit of Rs.1,00,000/-. Hence point No.2 is held accordingly.
Point No.3: From the above reasons we pass the following:
O R D E R
Thecomplaint is partly allowed with costs of Rs.1,000/-. The opposite parties shall pay Rs.1,00,000/- (rupees one lakh only) to complainant with interest at 7% per annum on the said amount from 01.04.2005 till the date of payment within three months from the date of this order.
Dictated to the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced in open Forum this the 14th day of January 2011.
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
