IN THE DIST.CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM BELAGAVI. AT BELAGAVI

Dated this 14^th  day of September 2016

Complaint Nos. 563/2015, 564/2015 and 565/2015

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

                        2) Sri. V.S. Gotakhindi,              Member.

                        3) Smt. Sunita                           Member.

-***-

Complainants:

                   Shri. Danappa S/o. Gurushantappa Hukkeri,

                   Age: 56years, Occu: Agriculture,

R/o. At & Post: Neginahal,

Tq: Bailhongal.

                                                                             C.C. No.563/2015

                   Smt. Rachamma D/o. Danappa Hukkeri,

                   Age: 29years, Occu: Household work,

R/o. At & Post: Neginahal,

Tq: Bailhongal.

                                                                             C.C. No.564/2015

Smt. Drakshayini W/o. Danappa Hukkeri,

                   Age: 50years, Occu: Household work,

R/o. At & Post: Neginahal,Tq: Bailhongal.

                                                                             C.C. No.565/2015

(By Sri. A.G.Huddar, Advocate).

                                                          V/s.

Opponents:

1.      Malaprabha Finance (R) Neginhal,

     R/by its Managing Partner,

Shri. Praveen Gopal Payannavar,

Age:34 years, Occ: Finance Business,

At & post: Neginhal, Tq: Bailhingal,

2.      Shri. Subhash Basavaneppa Rumoji,

     Age: 35 years, Occu: Finance Business,

At & post: Neginhal, Tq: Bailhingal,

3.      Shri. Suresh Nijaguneppa Sontakki,

     Age: 35years, Occu: Finance Business,

At & post: Neginhal, Tq: Bailhingal,

4.      Shri. Dayanand (Haricharandas) Sontakki,

     Age: 45years, Occu: Finance Business,

At & post: Neginhal, Tq: Bailhingal,

5.      Shri. Mahaling Prahalad Ganti,

     Age: 28years, Occu: Finance Business,

At & post: Neginhal, Tq: Bailhingal,

          6)      Shri. Jagadish Madakarappa Bajeri,

     Age: 30years, Occu: Business,

At & post: Neginhal, Tq: Bailhingal,

 (O.Ps. 1, 2, 3 and 5 are placed ex-parte,)

(OP.4 and 6 appeared in person)

(In person)

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

COMMON ORDER

Though the complainants are same and 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. finance is same, represented by Managing Partners. Hence for convenience all the cases are disposed of by the common order.

          II. Since there are 3 cases and same number 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 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 complainant/s have filed the complaint/s 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)   In-spite of service of notice O.Ps. 1 to 3 and 5 remained absent. Hence OPs are placed exparte and OP-4 and 6 appeared in person, but  not filed objection or affidavit after giving sufficient opportunities.

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. finance in form of 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;

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. 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 complainant further alleges that the OP1 is engaged in financial business and represented by its managing partners and the amount matured with interest comes to Rs.6,57,000/- from the date of deposit to October 2015. On 14.06.2015 the complainants approached the ARCS Bailhongal and ARCS issued notice to OP 1 to 5 and OP.2 to 5 were personally present before ARCS Bailhongal and inspite of written direction by ARCS Bailhongal dtd.21.09.2015 the OPs intentionally failed to repay the FD amount with interest and complainant/s produced office copy of the application dtd.15.06.2015 and also the notice issued to OPs dtd.26.06.2015 and 27.07.2015 and direction issued to OPs dt.21.09.2015 which are at Annexure F to I respectively. The complainant/s further alleges that on 06.10.2015, issued legal notice to OPs calling to repay the amount, though the OPs received the legal notice neither complied nor replied and OPs are duty bound to repay the amount with future interest and prayed to allow the complaint/s.

8)      The OPs 1 to 3 and 5 inspite of service of notice remained exparte and the OP 4 and 6 though appeared in person did not filed objections nor affidavit in the form of evidence and on the other hand the complainant/s filed their evidence affidavit and certain documents are produced along with original FDRs. We have heard the argument of complainant. After considering the facts and documents the complainant/s have proved deficiency in service on the part of OP finance. The FDRs shown in the table are marked and exhibited as C1 to 8.

9) 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.

          10) 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.

          11) Accordingly, following order.

ORDER

          The complaint/s are partly allowed.

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

F.D.R/s. amount deposited to the complainant/s as mentioned in column No.5 with interest at the rate of 12% from the dates of deposit mentioned at column No.4 upto the maturity dates shown in column no.6 respectively and with future interest @ 8% P.A. from the date shown in column no.6  till realization of entire amount.

          The O.Ps. represented by the Managing Partners as shown in the cause title are jointly and severally are hereby directed to pay to the complainant/s a sum of Rs.5,000/- 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.563/2015 and the true copy in other clubbed cases.

 (Order dictated, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on: 14^th day of September 2016)

          Member                    Member                    President.

msr*