Modinsab M Kalaigar filed a consumer case on 13 Jan 2016 against Liquidator of The Katakol Co-Op. Bank Ltd. in the Belgaum Consumer Court. The case no is CC/790/2014 and the judgment uploaded on 04 Feb 2016.
(Order dictated by Shri. B.V.Gudli, President)
COMMON ORDER
I. Though the complainants are same but the complainant in complaint No.792/14 is different, their grievances, allegations and the facts pleaded are same except the details of the deposits by the respective complainants. In all the cases the O.P. Bank is same, represented by the Liquidator. Hence for convenience all the cases are disposed of by the common order.
II. Since there are 4 cases and different complainants are there having same addresses and particulars of their deposits being different, for brevity and also for clarity and to avoid confusion, names of the parties of the particular cases only will be shown in the cause title and the details of the deposits will be shown separately in the annexure.
1) The relevant facts of the cases are that the respective complainants have filed the complaints u/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 against the O.Ps. alleging deficiency in banking service of non refund of the balance fixed deposits/deposits.
2) O.P. in the version has contended that the complainant made false and incorrect allegations. OP bank has liquidated, the R.B.I. has cancelled the licence and OP being Liquidator, discharging statutory duties and as such, there is no privity of contract and that the complainant is not a consumer. Further, this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint.
3) To prove the facts alleged in the complaint, the complainant/s have filed thier affidavit and produced the documents. On the other hand, Liquidator for the O.Ps has filed his affidavit.
4) We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the both parties and we have perused the records.
5) Now the point for our consideration is that whether the complainant have proved deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. 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) The complainant/s claim that they had kept fixed deposit with the O.P. bank and the total amount that they were entitled to is shown in the balance certificate issued by the Liquidator to the respective complainant/s. The Liquidator has paid part amount to the complainant/s and same is mentioned in the said certificate and balance to be paid is also mentioned in their certificates. The amounts of balance according to certificate are mentioned in the table shown. For this, the OP bank represented by the Liquidator has issued balance certificate on the respective dates. The original balance certificates are on record.
Sl. No. | Case No. | D.I.C.G.C. Certificate No./ Letter Head | D.I.C.G.C. claim amount | D.I.C.G.C. amount paid | Remaining Balance | Date of certificate |
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
1 | 789/2014 | Ref.No.2014-15 | 1,28,000 | 1,00,000 | 28,866 | 10/10/2014 |
2 | 790/2014 | Ref.No.2014-15 | 1,47,659 | 1,00,000 | 47,659 | 10/10/2014 |
3 | 791/2014 | 156 | 1,16,986 | 1,00,000 | 16,986 | 2/11/2010 |
4 | 792/2014 | 143 | 1,37,309 | 1,00,000 | 37,309 | 2/11/2010 |
These facts pleaded in the complaint and stated by the complainant are not disputed by the OP. Hence, the said balance payable to the complainant by the OP bank is proved.
8) There is no dispute that the O.P. bank has been liquidated and the Liquidator has been appointed. In the version, the OP contends that the R.B.I. as well as the Registrar of Co-operative Societies as well as the D.I.C.G.C. are necessary parties. The fact that the R.B.I. has cancelled the licence of the OP bank is nothing to do with the claim of the complainant. So also, the Deposit Insurance Corporation and the Registrar of Co-operative Societies. Hence, they are not at all a necessary parties to the proceedings. Moreover, the complainant/s have not at all alleged any grievance or deficiency in service on the part of the said parties. Hence, the contention of the OP that the complaint is not maintainable for non-joinder of parties, cannot be accepted.
9) Next contention of the O.P. is that there is no privity of contract between the liquidator and the complainant/s and hence, the complainant/s is not a consumer. It may be true that the complainant/s have no contract or transaction with the liquidator, but the complainant/s have banking transaction with the O.P, bank and the complainant/s have availed the banking service of the O.P. The O.P. bank is represented by the Liquidator. Claim and grievance of the complainant/s is not against the Liquidator directly, but against the O.P. bank. Hence, the complainant/s are consumer and the complaint/s are maintainable.
10) The O.P. in the version has contended that the Liquidator is discharging the statutory duties and as such, there is no deficiency in service. At the cost of repetition, as noted in the earlier paragraph the grievance of the complainant/s are not against the Liquidator in person, but against the OP bank. The Liquidator has to discharge his duties as per the Act, Rules, Regulations and the Direction of the authorities concerned. But the fact remains that the dispute is between the complainant/s and the OP bank. As regards, the contention of the Liquidator that he is discharging statutory duties and as such, the complaint/s are not maintainable, further it may be taken note of several aspects such as, that Karnataka Housing Board, the District Urban Development Authorities and several other statutory bodies represented by the concerned authorities, discharge statutory duties as per the respective Act, Rules and Regulations and in case of deficiency in service by the Housing Board, Development Authority etc., are covered by the definition of the service provided under the C.P. Act, and for those deficiencies, the complaints U/s 12 of the C.P. Act, are maintainable. Hence, the said contention of the Liquidator also cannot be appreciated.
11) It is pertinent to note that even according to the Liquidator of the O.P. bank, has been appointed as such by the concerned authority. The Liquidator has been appointed to take necessary steps in respect of the assets and liabilities of the OP bank and to discharge the duties as per the Act, Rules, Directions and Circulars in that regard. Hence, it is the duty of the liquidator to satisfy the claim of the creditors or depositors. It is not at all the contention of the Liquidator that the assets of the O.P. bank is not sufficient to discharge the claim of the complainant/s. Hence, the OP bank represented by the Liquidator is answerable to the claim of the complainant/s.
12) Taking in to consideration of various aspects and the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court reported in (2011) SCCR 268 and of the Hon’ble Apex Commission reported in 2013 (2) CPR 574 as well as other subsequent decisions absolutely it is just and necessary to impose cost on daily basis if order remains uncomplied within the period fixed for compliance of the order, so as to have feeling and pinch.
13) Accordingly, following order.
ORDER
The complaints are allowed.
The O.P. Bank represented by the Liquidator is hereby directed to pay to the complainant/s as ordered below;
Sl. No. | Case No. | D.I.C.G.C. Certificate No./ Letter Head | D.I.C.G.C. claim amount | D.I.C.G.C. amount paid | Remaining Balance | Date of certificate |
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
1 | 789/2014 | Ref.No.2014-15 | 1,28,000 | 1,00,000 | 28,866 | 10/10/2014 |
2 | 790/2014 | Ref.No.2014-15 | 1,47,659 | 1,00,000 | 47,659 | 10/10/2014 |
3 | 791/2014 | 156 | 1,16,986 | 1,00,000 | 16,986 | 2/11/2010 |
4 | 792/2014 | 143 | 1,37,309 | 1,00,000 | 37,309 | 2/11/2010 |
The O.Ps. represented by the Liquidator is hereby directed to pay the balance amount to the complainant/s as mentioned in column No.6 with future interest at the rate of 8% P.A. from dates mentioned in column No.7 respectively till realization of the entire balance amount as per the certificate/s.
Further, the O.P. represented by the Liquidator is hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- in each complaint, to the complainant/s towards costs of the proceedings.
The order shall be complied within 30 days from the date of the order.
If the order is not complied within stipulated period, O.Ps. are hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.50/- per day to the complainant from the date of disobedience of order, till the order is complied.
The original order shall be kept in complaint No.789/2014 and the true copy in other clubbed cases.
(Order dictated, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on: 13th day of January 2016)
Member Member President.
gm*
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.