Complaint filed on: 23-02-2022

                                                      Disposed on: 13-01-2023

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, TUMAKURU

DATED THIS THE 13^th DAY OF JANUARY, 2023

PRESENT

SMT.G.T.VIJAYALAKSHMI, B.Com., LLM., PRESIDENT

SRI.KUMARA.N, B.Sc. (Agri), LLB., MBA., MEMBER

SMT.NIVEDITA RAVISH, B.A., LLB.(Spl)., LADY MEMBER

Consumer Complaint No.90/2022  to 94/2022

K.B.Jagadisha Aradhya S/o M.C.Basavanadevaru,

Aged about 62 years, R/o “HARAKRUPA NILAYA”,

2^nd Cross, 2^nd Block, 4^th Main Road, Mahalakshmi Nagara,

Batawadi, Tumkur.

……….Complainant is same in all these cases

(By Sri.B.K.Prabhuswamy, Advocate)

V/s

3. Sahara Credit Co-Operative Society Ltd.,

Regd. Office, Shara India Bhavana,

Kapporthala Complex, Aliganji,

Lucknow-226 024.

2.       The Sector-Head/Manager,

          Sahara Credit Co-Operative Society,

          Tumkur Sector, SS Puram, Post Office,

          Building, SS Puram, Tumkur-572 102.

3.       The Regional Manager,

          Sahara Credit Co-Operative Society Ltd.,

          4^th Cross, 5^th Main Road, Chamarajapet,

          Bangalore-18.

………..OPs are also same in all these cases.

(OP1& 2  by Sri. A.Chaluvaraju, Adv.,)

(OP3 – Served absent)

:C O M M O N O R D E R:

SMT.G.T.VIJAYALAKSHMI, PRESIDENT

These complaints were filed by the complainant against the Opposite Parties 1 to 3 with a prayer to direct the OPs 1 to 3 to pay the maturity amount along with interest @ 18% PA together with Rs.10,000/- towards general damages for mental shock and agony.

The complainant and the OPs are same in all these complaints and the facts involved in the complaints are also one and the same, hence, to avoid repetition of the facts and evidence, this common order.  

2.       It is the case of complainant that, the complainant had deposited the amount in “SAHARA.A  SELECT” as follows:

Further, the complainant submitted that after maturity of the said amount, the complainant approached the OP No.2 and requested to pay the maturity amount, but the OP No.2 dodged the same in one or the other pretexts. Hence, the complainant got issued legal notice through his counsel, but though received notice, the OP No.2 did not pay the maturity amount with interest.  Hence, the complaints. 

3.       In spite of service of notice against OP Nos.1 & 2, the OP Nos.1 & 2 appeared through their counsel, but later did not turn up further.  The complainant impleaded the OP No.3 and after allowing impleading application, notice was sent to OP No.3, but though the OP No.3 received notice remained absent. 

4.       The counsel for complainant filed affidavit in lieu of evidence and produced copies of documents in all these complaints to prove the case of complainant.

5.       On hearing the arguments of learned counsel for complainant and on perusal of the documents, the points that would arise for determination are as under;

1. Whether the complainant proves the deficiency of  service on the part of OPs?

2. Is complainant entitled to the relief sought for?

6.        Our findings aforesaid points are as under:

Point No.1: In the affirmative

Point No.2: As per the final order

:REASONS:

7. Point Nos.1 and 2: The learned counsel for the complainant submitted that, the OPs have failed to return the deposited amount and interest amount. The complainant in the affidavit evidence reiterated the averments of complaint.

8.       To prove the deposit made by the complainant, the complainant has produced xerox copy of the bond, wherein it is seen that the complainant has deposited the amount with the OPs as per table below:

9.       The counsel for complainant at the time of arguments submitted that though the complainant requested the OP No.2 several times to pay maturity amount, but the OP No.2 did not pay the maturity amount   Hence, the complainant issued legal notice, but after receipt of the legal notice, the OP No.2 remained silent.  The OPs have not produced any documents to disprove the allegation made by the complainant against them by appearing before this Commission.  This goes to show that there is a deficiency of service on the part of OPs.  Further, the complainant claimed interest @ 18% on the maturity amount till payment.  But now the bank rate of interest has been reduced, as such the complainant is entitled for interest @ 9% p.a. on the maturity amount from the date of maturity till payment.

10. Due to the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice of the OPs, the complainant compelled to approach this Commission.  Hence, the complainant is entitled for compensation of Rs.3,000/- towards mental agony suffered by the complainant and Rs.3,000/- towards litigation expenses in each complaint. In the result, we proceed to pass the following;

:ORDER:

The complaint Nos.90/2022, 91/2022, 92/2022, 93/2022 and 94/2022 filed by complainant are allowed in part. 

The OPs 1 to 3 are jointly and severally directed to pay the maturity amount as per table below to the complainant with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of maturity to till its realization.

 Further, the OP Nos. 1 to 3 are jointly and severally directed to pay to the complainant Rs.3,000/- towards compensation and Rs.3,000/- as litigation expenses in each complaint.

The OP Nos. 1 to 3 are further jointly and severally directed to comply the above order within 45 days from the date of receipt/knowledge of the order.

Supply free copy of this order to both parties