BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, GADAG.

(Basaveshwar Nagar, Opp: Tahasildar Office, Gadag.)

Complaint No   : 43/2023

    Date of Filing   : 14-03-2023

        Date of Disposal   : 05^th October 2023

Present:

1)      SHRI RACHAPPA K. TALIKOTI, B.Com, L.L.B(Spl.)

President

2)      SHRI RAJU. N. METRI, B.Com, L.L.B(Spl.)

Member

3)      SMT. YASHODA BHASKAR PATIL,B.Com, L.L.B(Spl.), M.Ed.

Woman Member

Complainant/s   :

1. Sri Vittal S/o Mahadev Deshpande,

Age: 92 years, Occ: Retired Teacher,

R/o Dandapur Oni, Naragund,

Tq:Nargund, Dist: Gadag.

2. Mahadev S/o Vittal Deshpande

Deceased by his LRs.

Age: 54 years, Occ: House work,

R/o Dandapur Oni, Naragund,

Tq:Nargund, Dist: Gadag.

Age: 30 years, Occ: Private Employee,

R/o Dandapur Oni, Naragund,

Tq:Nargund, Dist: Gadag.

Age: 28 years, Occ: Private Employee,

R/o Dandapur Oni, Naragund,

Tq:Nargund, Dist: Gadag.

Age: 30 years, Occ: Private Employee,

R/o Dandapur Oni, Naragund,

Tq:Nargund, Dist: Gadag.

(By Shri C.V. Hiremath, Adv.)

V/s

Opponent/s        :

1. President,

Sri Ram Gruh Nirman Sahakar Sangh Niyamit,

2. Chief Executive Officer,

Sri Ram Gruh Nirman Sahakar Sangh Niyamit,

Nargund.

Sri Basavaraj Shivaputrappa Konanavar,

R/o: Chikkanaragund, Tq: Nargund, Dist: Gadag.

Sri Ningappa Maritammappa Madiwalar,

R/o: Vivekanandanagar, Naragund,

Tq: Nargund, Dist: Gadag.

Sri Shivanand Vittalappa Chavan,

R/o: Shiddanabhavi Oni, Naragund,

Tq: Naragund, Dist: Gadag.

Sri Tippanna Basappa Gadekar,

R/o: Shiddanabhavi Oni, Naragund,

Tq: Naragund, Dist: Gadag.

Sri Basavaraj Fakirappa Savadatti,

R/o: Shiddanabhavi Oni, Naragund,

Tq: Naragund, Dist: Gadag.

Sri Aravind Fakirappa Chilamur,

R/o: H.P.E.S. No:4, Naragund,

Tq: Naragund, Dist: Gadag.

Sri Mehaboobsab Fakrusab Yaligar,

Chikkanaragund, Tq: Nargund, Dist: Gadag.

Sri Srinivas Maruti Honakeri,

Savadatti Road, Naragund, Tq: Nargund, Dist: Gadag.

Sri Hanamantagouda Venkanagouda Kulakarni,

Dandapur Oni, Naragund, Tq: Nargund, Dist: Gadag.

Sri Hanamantagouda Bhimanagouda Mallanagoudra,

Dandapur Oni, Naragund, Tq: Nargund, Dist: Gadag.

Smt. Noorjan Imamsab Tegginamani,

R/o: Arban Oni, Naragund, Tq: Nargund, Dist: Gadag.

Smt. Kavita Parashuram Todakar,

R/o: Arban Oni, Naragund, Tq: Nargund, Dist: Gadag.

                   (OPs-1 to 14 By Shri P.S. Dharmayat, Adv.)

(Order dictated by Smt. Yashoda B. Patil, Woman Member)

ORDER

           The complainants have filed this complaint U/Sec. 35 of the C.P. Act 2019 against the OPs alleging deficiency in service in not refunding the FDRs amount with interest.

          The complaint is filed seeking directions against OPs to refund FDRs amount with interest, compensation and cost.

          2)      The brief facts of the complaint are as under:-

          The complainants are one family member and they have filed this joint complaint by filing application U/Sec. 35 (1) (C) of C.P. Act. They are permanent Resident of Naragund.

          3)      The Ops Sri Ram Gruh Nirman Sahakar Sangh Niyamit, Naragund is engaged in accepting deposits from the public and lending loan. OP-1 is the president, OP-2 is the C.E.O. and OPs-3 to 14 are Directors. The complainants after making an enquiry have made following deposits with the OPs as detailed below:

          4)      The OP society has agreed to refund the FDRs amount with 12% interest. Accordingly they have issued FD receipts. The OPs have not returned the said FDRs maturity amount inspite of repeated demand. The OPs have neglected to refund the amount and in this regard the complainants and other such FD holders have complained to Deputy Commissioner and other Officers. A legal notice dtd: 30-11-2022 was issued to the Ops, but a false reply is given on 19-12-2022. Under the circumstances the complainants have filed this complaint. 

5)      Upon service of notice, OP-1 to 14 appeared through their counsel and OP-2 filed written version and a memo is filed by other OPs adopting the written version of OP-2.

The Brief facts/contention of OPs are as under:

 The OPs are not necessary party to the proceeding, there is no deficiency of service, there is no relationship of Consumer & Service provider between complainants and OPs. Therefore, the complaint be dismissed. The complaint is also not maintainable since more than one complainant has filed the complaint and necessary application U/Sec. 35 (1) (C) of C.P. Act 2019 is not filed. The complaint is also barred by limitation.

6)      An enquiry is initiated against the Ops-1 to 14 U/Sec. 64 of K.C.S. Act 1959 by concerned Authority. Therefore during pendency of enquiry no amount can be disbursed. The particulars of FDRs mentioned by the complainants are not admitted. The OPs have not issued the FDRs. The SB A/c numbers are not compared with the FDRs. This fact is informed to the complainants. The registers and other records of the society are seized by the authorities for enquiry U/Sec. 64 K.C.S. Act. The other allegations are denied. Notice under K.C.S. Act is not issued and therefore complaint is not maintainable and hence, prays to dismiss the complaint.  

          7)      The complainant No-1 has filed his affidavit evidence and produced the documents Ex. C-1 to C-16. The OP-2 CEO has filed his affidavit evidence.

          8)      Heard arguments on both sides and perused the records.

          9)      The points that arise for our determination are as under:

POINTS

          10)    Our findings on the above points are as under:

                   Point No. 1 :        In the affirmative   

                   Point No. 2 :        In the partly affirmative

                   Point No. 3 :        As per final Order for the following:-

:: REASONS ::

          11)    Point No. 1 and 2:- The discussion is likely to overlap and therefore both the points are taken up together for determination.

          12)    In order to substantiate their case, the complainant No.1 has filed his affidavit evidence and reiterated almost all the facts stated in the complaint. He has stated that himself and on behalf of complainant No. 2 (a) to 2(c) & complainant No. 3 have invested aforesaid amount with OPs society. The amount was not refunded inspite of repeated demand. There is deficiency of service.

          13)    In support of their case, the complainants have produced Ex. C-1 copy of legal notice, Ex. C-2 copy of OPs reply letter dtd: 19-12-2022, Ex. C-3 is the copy of elected Directors list, Ex. C-4 is the copy of annexure-19 dtd: 20-03-2021,  Ex. C-5 is the copy of amended notice dtd: 25-01-2023 and Ex. C-6 is the copy of OPs amended reply letter dtd: 30-01-2023 and Ex. C-7 to C-16 FD receipts. 

          14)    The OP-2 CEO has filed affidavit evidence and stated as per their defense. It is stated that complaint is not maintainable. The particulars of deposits are not admitted and there is no deficiency of service on the part of the OPs.

          15)    The learned counsel for the complainants has submitted that the FDRs produced in this case establish the case of complainant. The learned counsel for the OPs has submitted complaint is not maintainable; particulars of FDRs are not matching.

          16)    The FD receipts are produced by the complainants. Each FDRs are for one year with interest payable @12%. The particulars tally with the claim made by the complainants. The copy of legal notice issued to OPs, the copy of newspaper
support the contention of complainants that they have deposited the amount as claimed. Except for denying the case OPs are not successful in establishing their defense. The newspaper report clearly proves that the OP society was not functioning properly and there was allegation of misappropriation of funds. The CEO of the society has given a clarification in the said news item that the FDR amounts of depositors will be refunded as soon as the loan amounts of society are recovered. There is a document to show that enquiry U/Sec. 64 of KCS Act is also being held against Ops for irregularities. Under the circumstances all the OPs are responsible for refund of the amount and said amount was not refunded in spite of issuing notice to OPs and filing this case. Therefore complainants are entitled to recover the FDRs amounts with agreed rate of interest and future interest @9% from the date maturity of FDRs amounts.

          17)    The learned counsel for the Ops has contended that complaint is barred by limitation. The complainant has produced the copy of notice issued to the Ops. Newspaper cutting is produced where secretary has under taken to refund the FDRs amount to the FD holders. The complaint is filed on 14-03-2023. There was Covid-19 prevailing in this part and that period has to be exempted. The cause of action for FD is a continuing cause of action, the complaint is in time and OPs are liable to pay amount. By not paying the amounts, there is deficiency in service of opponents. The complainants are consumers U/Sec. 2 (7) of C.P. Act 2019 as they have deposited amount and the society is the service provider. The complaint is maintainable. Sec. 100 of C.P. Act provides additional remedy to the consumers to seek their relief before the Consumer Commission. Under the circumstances there is no necessity of issuing notice U/Sec. 125 of K.C.S. Act. The Ops are liable to pay the amounts. One another argument made by the Advocate for the opponent is that the name of society is not properly mentioned in the case. He pointed out at “full stop(.)” mark after the word “Sri”. The arguments of learned counsel cannot be considered to dismiss the claim of complainants when they have established their right of recovery against the society and a small mark i.e. “full stop (.)” mentioned after “Sri” can be ignored. In fact it is a case against Sri Ram Graha Nirman Sahakari Sangha Niyamit, Naragund. The complainants are entitled to refund of FDRs amounts. Hence, we answer the point No.1 in the Affirmative and answer the point No.2 partly in the Affirmative.  

          18)    Point No. 3: We pass the following:

: O R D E R :

          1)      The complaint is hereby allowed.

          2)      The Opponent No.1 to 14 are jointly and severally and held liable to pay the following amounts to complainants as ordered below:

The amount invested in FD as per column.3 with agreed rate of interest as per column.6 from the date of investment till the date of maturity (i.e. upto one year) along with future interest @9% P.A. from the date of maturity on maturity amount till realization of the entire amount.

          3)      Further the OPs No. 1 to 14 are hereby jointly and severally held liable to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards cost of the proceedings.

4)      The order shall be complied within 60 days from the date of the order. 

          5)      Applications pending, if any, stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.

6)      A copy of this judgment be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986/2019. The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties.

7)      File be consigned to record room along with a copy of this judgment.

          (Order dictated on computer, corrected and then pronounced in the open Commission on 05^th day of October-2023)

-: ANNEXURE:-

Evidence on Behalf of complainants

PW-1 – Sri Vittal S/o Mahadev Deshpande

Documents on Behalf of Complainants

Evidence on Behalf of OPs

RW-1 – Shri Pakkirappa S/o Siddappa Meeshi (Chief Executive Officer)

Documents on Behalf of OPs

• Nil –