Karnataka

Belgaum

CC/66/2016

Rajendra A Magadum - Complainant(s)

Versus

Kalagouda B Patil. The Chairman Shri. Padmavati Co-Op Cr Scty Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

K B Hampainnavar

11 May 2017

ORDER

IN THE DIST.CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM BELAGAVI.

 

Dated this 11 May 2017

 

Complaint No. 66/2016

 

Present:            1) Shri. B.V.Gudli,                     President

                        2) Smt.Sunita                            Member

-***-

Complainant/s:

          Sri. Rajendra Adappa Magadum,

Age: 58 years, Occ: Agriculture,

R/o. Ugar B.K, Tq.Athani,

Dist.Belagavi.

                            

(By Shri. K.B.Hampainnavar, Adv)

 

                                                          V/s.

Opponent/s:

 

1. Sri.Kalagouda Bhujgouda Patil,

The Chairman,

Shri. Padmavati Co-Op Cr. Society Ltd.,

R/o. Ugar B.K, Tq.Athani,

Dist.Belagavi.

                            

 

2. Sri.Tatyasab Savanta Sadalage,

The Secretary,

Shri. Padmavati Co-Op Cr. Society Ltd.,

R/o. Ugar B.K, Tq.Athani,

Dist.Belagavi.

 

 

(Op.1 & 2 by Sri.M.H.Nandgoun Adv.)

 

 

 (Order dictated by Sri.B.V.Gudli, President)

 

 

 

 

ORDER

          U/s.12 of the C.P. Act, complainant has filed the complaint against the O.Ps. alleging deficiency in service of non payment of the F.D.R. amount.

          2) Upon service of notice to O.Ps. the OP.1 and 2 appeared through their counsel but not filed their objections and evidence affidavit.

          3) In support of the claim in the complaint, complainant has filed his affidavit and original F.D.R is produced by the complainant.

          4) We have heard the argument of the counsel of the complainant and perused the records.

          5) Now the point for our consideration is that whether the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of the O.P’s. and entitled to the reliefs sought?

          6) Our finding on the point is partly in affirmative, for the following reasons.

:: R E A S O N S ::

          7) On perusal contents of the complaint and affidavit filed by the complainant, the complainant for the purpose his children future expenses has invested an amount of 5,000/- in OP society under FDR NO.15 A/c No.15 on 06.09.1994, date of maturity is 06.09.2015 and maturity amount is Rs.1 lakh. After the maturity of the said FDR the complainant approached the OPs and requested to pay the said FDR maturity amount, but the OPs postponed the same on one or other reasons. Hence the complainant issued legal notice through his advocate to OPs on 28.09.2015 calling upon them to pay the said FDR maturity amount, but the OPs failed to comply the notice. Hence opponents committed deficiency in service as contemplated under the provision of the consumer protection act 1986. Therefore the complainant is constrained to file this complaint against OPs.

8)      On perusal documents F.D.R produced by the complainant, the FDR is standing in the name of the complainant. On perusal evidence affidavit of the complainant, after maturity of F.D.R the opponents have not paid F.D.R amount. Hence, the claim of the complainant that inspite of the demands made the amount remained unpaid, has to be believed and accepted. After service of the notice the OPs appeared before the forum but not filed evidence affidavit or objections to the complaint. Hence it is well settled legal position that non payment of the amount deposited, amounts to deficiency in service.

      9) Taking into consideration of the facts, evidence on record and the discussion made here before deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. have been proved.

       10) Accordingly, following order.

 

:ORDER:

          The complaint is partly allowed.

          The Opponents. 1 and 2 as shown in the cause title are hereby jointly and severely directed and liable to pay the matured  FDR No.15 amount to Rs.1 lakh to the complainant with future interest @9% P.A. from 07.09.2015  till realization of the entire amount. 

          Further, the Opponents. 1 and 2 as shown in the cause title are hereby jointly and severely directed and liable to pay   a sum of Rs.3,000/- to the complainant towards costs of the proceedings.

The order shall be complied within 30 days from the date of the order.

(Order dictated, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on: 11 May 2017)

 

 

 

MSR