Karnataka

Belgaum

CC/170/2015

Surekha M Margannavar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Paragouda A Halappanavar Secretary Of Sri Kapilnath Co-Op Cr Scty Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

L Y Patil

30 Sep 2015

ORDER

(Order dictated by Smt. Sunita, Member)

COMMON ORDER

Though the complainants are 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.Ps. society is same, represented by Secretary and Directors. Hence for convenience all the cases are disposed of by the common order.

          II. Since there are 10 cases and same number complainants are there having different 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 case 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 fixed deposits/deposit.

          2) O.P.No.1 appeared through advocate but did not filed version. In complaint No.182/2015 and 183/2015. In-spite of service of notice remained all O.Ps. are placed exparte. In other cases except O.P.No.1 all are placed exparte.

3) In support of the claim in the complaint, complainant has filed affidavit and certain documents including original F.D.R./s are produced. We have heard arguments of the counsel and perused the record.

4) Now the point for our consideration is that whether the complainant has proved any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. and he is entitled to the reliefs sought?

5) Finding on the point is partly in affirmative for the following reasons.

:: R E A S O N S ::

          6) From the evidence on record it has been proved that the complainant/s have deposited the amount in O.P. society in F.D.R/s. in the respective accounts and for the respective sum mentioned in the F.D.R/s. The maturity value, the amount deposited and the dates are shown in the table below;

Sl. No.	Complaint No.	FDR/FDR. A/c. No.	Date of deposit	Amount deposited	Date of maturity	matured Amount
1	2	3	4	5	6	7
1	167/2015	1089	6/1/2007	25,000/-	6/7/2013	50,000/-
2	168/2015	1094	6/1/2007	25,000/-	6/7/2013	50,000/-
3	169/2015	1090	6/1/2007	25,000/-	6/7/2013	50,000/-
4	170/2015	1093	6/1/2007	25,000/-	6/7/2013	50,000/-
5	171/2015	1267	8/9/2008	20,000/-	8/12/2014	40,000/-
		1268	8/9/2008	20,000/-	8/12/2014	40,000/-
6	172/2015	1265	8/9/2008	20,000/-	8/12/2014	40,000/-
		1266	8/9/2008	20,000/-	8/12/2014	40,000/-
7	173/2015	1091	6/1/2007	25,000/-	6/7/2013	50,000/-
8	174/2015	1092	6/1/2007	25,000/-	6/7/2013	50,000/-
9	182/2015	1088	6/1/2007	25,000/-	6/7/2013	50,000/-
		1098	30/1/2006	20,000/-	30/7/2012	40,000/-
10	183/2015	1100	30/1/2006	20,000/-	30/7/2012	40,000/-
		1269	8/9/2008	20,000/-	8/12/2014	40,000/-
		1095	6/1/2007	25,000/-	6/7/2013	50,000/-
		1099	30/1/2006	20,000/-	30/7/2012	40,000/-

7) Grievance of the complainant/s is that after maturity inspite of the repeated requests the maturity value was not paid and hence there is deficiency in service. On perusal evidence affidavit of the complainant, after maturity of F.D.R/s., as mentioned above in the table, the opponents have not paid F.D.R/s. amount. Hence, the claim of the complainant that inspite of the demands made the amount remained unpaid, has to be believed and accepted. It is well settled legal position that non payment of the amount deposited, amounts to deficiency in service. In complaint No.173, the complainant is represented by minor guardian her uncle. In these cases the delay condonation application filed by the complainant was not allowed but after perusing documents and application the forum condoned the delay and the application is allowed. Except in complaint No.182/2015 and 183/2015, the O.P.No.1 has been represented by the counsel by filing vakalat but O.P.No.1 not produced version, affidavit nor any documents in their defence. The complainant has contended that the O.Ps. are entitled to pay future  interest of 18% P.A. and even after approaching have failed to pay the F.D.R/s. amount by which the complainant have suffered financial and mentally and prayed to allow the complaint with interest. The considering contention that the complainant/s are entitled for future at the rate of 18% P.A., but the future ordered below is just and reasonable which is ordered from the date of maturity.

8) 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.

          9) Accordingly, following order.

ORDER

          The complaints are partly allowed.

          The O.Ps. represented by the Secretary and Directors as shown in the cause title are jointly and severally are hereby directed to pay to the complainant/s as ordered below;

Sl. No.	Complaint No.	FDR/FDR. A/c. No.	Date of deposit	Amount deposited	Date of maturity	matured Amount
1	2	3	4	5	6	7
1	167/2015	1089	6/1/2007	25,000/-	6/7/2013	50,000/-
2	168/2015	1094	6/1/2007	25,000/-	6/7/2013	50,000/-
3	169/2015	1090	6/1/2007	25,000/-	6/7/2013	50,000/-
4	170/2015	1093	6/1/2007	25,000/-	6/7/2013	50,000/-
5	171/2015	1267	8/9/2008	20,000/-	8/12/2014	40,000/-
		1268	8/9/2008	20,000/-	8/12/2014	40,000/-
6	172/2015	1265	8/9/2008	20,000/-	8/12/2014	40,000/-
		1266	8/9/2008	20,000/-	8/12/2014	40,000/-
7	173/2015	1091	6/1/2007	25,000/-	6/7/2013	50,000/-
8	174/2015	1092	6/1/2007	25,000/-	6/7/2013	50,000/-
9	182/2015	1088	6/1/2007	25,000/-	6/7/2013	50,000/-
		1098	30/1/2006	20,000/-	30/7/2012	40,000/-
10	183/2015	1100	30/1/2006	20,000/-	30/7/2012	40,000/-
		1269	8/9/2008	20,000/-	8/12/2014	40,000/-
		1095	6/1/2007	25,000/-	6/7/2013	50,000/-
		1099	30/1/2006	20,000/-	30/7/2012	40,000/-

The O.Ps. represented by the Secretary and Directors are jointly and severally hereby directed to pay the F.D.R/s. amount matured to the complainant/s as mentioned in column No.7 with future interest at the rate of 8% from the dates mentioned at column No.6 as shown in the table above respectively.

          Further, the O.Ps. represented by the Secretary and Directors are jointly and severally are 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.167/2015 and the true copy in other clubbed cases.

 (Order dictated, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on: 30^th day of September 2015)

          Member                    Member                    President.

gm*