Complainant through Lrd. Adv. Smt. Kulkarni
Opponent through Lrd Adv. A. S. Nagtilak-Chavan
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*--*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*--
Per : Mr. V. P. Utpat, President Place : PUNE
// J U D G M E N T //
(23/10/2013)
This complaint is filed by the consumer against co-operative society for deficiency in service under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The brief facts are as follows,
1] The opponent is a Co-operative society registered under Maharashtra Co-operative Society Act, 1960. It has declared a fixed deposit scheme in the year 2008 and agreed to pay interest @ 12 % p.a. on fixed deposit. It has put condition for the said scheme that minimum amount of Rs. 25,000/- is to be deposited for 37 months. The complainant had deposited Rs. 50,000/- with the opponent on 6/8/2008 under the said scheme. The opponent had issued fixed deposit receipt bearing no. 374 and 377. The opponent did not repay the said amount even after maturity of the fixed deposit. The complainant was in need of money for purchasing flat No. 689 from CTS No. 213, Sadashiv Peth, Lokmanyanagar, Pune – 30 for Rs. 12 lacs. He requested for withdrawing the deposit amount but the opponent did not allow to withdraw. The complainant had sold out gold ornaments of his wife and also took personal loan from relatives for purchasing flat. The fixed deposit was matured on 6/9/2011. On that day the complainant approached the opponent for payment of the said fixed deposit, but opponent refused to pay interest as well as principal amount. The complainant has issued letter to the opponent on 23/7/2011 and called upon the opponent for making payment of principal as well as interest amount. Again complainant informed opponent for repayment of the said amount by another letter dtd. 25/1/2012. Thus, the opponent has caused deficiency in service by not making payment of principal amount as well as interest. The complainant has claimed compensation of Rs. 1 lac as well as an amount of Rs. 68,500/- i.e. principal and interest as per agreement. The complainant has further asked interest @ 18% p.a. on the said deposit from the date of maturity till realization of the said amount.
2] The opponent has resisted the claim by filing written version. It has flatly denied the contents of the complaint in toto. It is the case of the opponent that, the Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint, as the complainant is not a ‘consumer’ as per section 2(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and opponent has not provided any service to the complainant. The opponent has also denied that the complainant had kept fixed deposits, in which the opponent had declared a scheme for fixed deposits and agreed to pay interest @ 12% p.a. According to the opponent, the Manager of the opponent has committed fraud of huge amount and malafiedly issued receipts without knowledge of Chairman and Secretary of the opponent. The opponent has further contended that there is no transaction between complainant and the opponent and it has prayed for dismissal of the complaint and asked for compensatory costs.
3] After scrutinizing the pleadings of both the parties as well as documentary evidence, rejoinder filed by the complainant, fixed deposit receipts, office copies of letters, copy of agreement for sale of flat, copy of receipt regarding sell of ornaments, following points arise for my determination. The points, findings and the reasons thereon are as follows-
Sr.No. | POINTS | FINDINGS |
1. | Whether complainant is a ‘consumer’ under section 2(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986? | In the affirmative |
2. | Whether opponent has caused deficiency in service? | In the affirmative |
2. | What order? | Complaint is partly allowed. |
REASONS :-
4] It is the case of the complainant that, it has deposited an amount of Rs. 50,000/- with the opponent as a fixed deposit for the period of 37 months and the opponent agreed to pay interest @ 12 % p.a. on the said amount. In order to substantiate the claim, the complainant has filed receipts as well as office copies of the letters, which were sent to the opponents. It reveals from the same that the deposits were made with the opponent on 6/8/2008 and the date of maturity was 6/9/2011. Both the receipts are bearing signatures of Chairman and Manager of the opponent. These are also bearing numbers and prima facie it appears that these are genuine receipts. It is the case of the opponent that the Manager of opponent has committed fraud and issued malafide receipts. But it reveals from the receipts that these are bearing signatures of Manager as well as Chairman. It is significant to note that the opponent has not produced any record to show that, any action has been taken against the Manager as well as the complainant for preparing fabricated documents. In such circumstances, it is very difficult to accept that the said receipts are bogus and fabricated and prepared by Manager alone. Moreover, the opponent has not produced any document to show that it has replied the letters of complainant promptly. The opponent has not given reply to the notice issued by the complainant. In these circumstances, I held that it is established by the complainant that he had deposited an amount of Rs. 50,000/- with the opponent, as per the allegations made in the complaint and it is proved that the opponent has caused deficiency in service while not making payment of said deposits even after maturity.
5] The opponent has made averment in the written version that the complainant was small deposit collecting agent of the opponent and he took disadvantage of his position and prepared these false receipts and filed this false complaint. It is significant to note that, the complainant is not a unknown person to the opponent. The opponent never took any action against the complainant, Manager or any other persons. Hence, I held that the complainant has proved deficiency in service committed by the opponent; hence the complainant is entitled for refund of fixed deposit along with interest as per agreement.
6] The complainant has asked future interest @ 18 % p.a. but there is no agreement between the parties as regards the future interest. Hence, I held that the complainant is entitled for interest @ 9% by way of damages on due amount. The complainant has asked compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- for mental agony and other expenses. This claim of the complainant is exorbitant. The complainant is entitled for Rs. 5,000/- by way of compensation on the ground of mental and physical suffering and Rs. 2000/- for cost of the litigation.
7] It reveals from the contents of the fixed deposit receipts that the opponent had accepted fixed deposit amount from the complainant, but failed to refund the amount as per terms and conditions. That amounts to deficiency in service. The opponent is a registered Co-operative society and the complainant is the depositor. Hence, I held that the relation between the parties is as ‘consumer’ and ‘service provider’. After considering the definition of word ‘consumer’ under section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, it reveals that the complainant had hired services for consideration. It further reveals that the opponent is dealing in the banking services. It is a registered Co-operative society dong business of banking, accepting deposits and disbursing loan. Hence, I held that the relation between complainant and the opponent is ‘consumer’ and ‘service provider’ and the complainant is a ‘consumer’. I answer the points accordingly and pass the following order.
** ORDER **
1. Complaint is partly allowed.
2. It is hereby declared that the opponent has
caused deficiency in service by not making
repayment of fixed deposits along with interest
even after maturity.
3. The opponent is directed to refund an amount
of Rs. 68,500/- (Rs. Sixty Eight Thousand Five
Hundred only) along with interest @ 9% p.a.
from the date of filing of the complaint till its
realization, within six weeks from the date of
receipt of copy of this order.
4. Copies of this order be furnished to the parties
free of cost.
5. Parties are directed to collect the sets,
which were provided for Members within
one month from the date of order, otherwise
those will be destroyed.
Place – Pune
Date- 23/10/2013
