Karnataka

Belgaum

CC/466/2016

Mrs. Vrunda Suryakant Gajare - Complainant(s)

Versus

Shree Aashraya Souharda Credit Society Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

M.V.Vardhamane

30 Jun 2017

ORDER

IN THE DIST.CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM BELAGAVI.

Dated this 30 June 2017

1. Complaint No. 464/2016
2. Complaint No. 465/2016
3. Complaint No. 466/2016
4. Complaint No. 467/2016
5. Complaint No. 468/2016

 

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

                        2) Smt. Sunita,                          Member

-***-

Complainant/s:

                             Sri.Suryakant Basavani Gajare,

                             Age: about 37 years, Occ: Pensioner,

                             R/o: Kowad, Tq.Chandgad, Dist.Kolhapur.

Shiva Basav Nagar, Belagavi

                                                C.C. No.464/2016, 465/16 

 

                             Mrs.Vrunda Suryakant  Gajare,

                             Age: about 26 years, Occ: Household,

                             R/o: Kowad, Tq.Chandgad, Dist.Kolhapur.

Shiva Basav Nagar, Belagavi

                                                C.C. No.466/2016

 

                             Mrs.Nanda  Basavani Gajare,

                             Age: about 62 years, Occ: Household,

                             R/o: Kowad, Tq.Chandgad, Dist.Kolhapur.

Shiva Basav Nagar, Belagavi

                                                C.C. No.467/2016

 

                             Mrs.Veena Sachin Gajare,

                             Age: about 30 years, Occ: Household,

                             R/o: Kowad, Tq.Chandgad, Dist.Kolhapur.

Shiva Basav Nagar, Belagavi

                                                C.C. No.468/2016

 

                             (By Sri. M.V.Vardhamane, Adv.)

 

                                                          V/s.

 

Opponent/s:       Shree Aashraya Souhard Credit Society Ltd.,

                             Aashraya Empire, Tilakwadi, Belagavi.

                             R/by its Chairman.

 

                             (OP by Sri.S.R.Sakri, Adv.)

 

 

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

 

 

COMMON ORDER

            I. Though the complainants are different, their grievances, allegations and the facts pleaded are same except the details of the deposits by the complainants.  In all the cases the opponent is same, as shown in the cause title. Hence for convenience all the cases are disposed of by the common order.

          II. Since there are 5 cases and same 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 table.

          1) The relevant facts of the cases are that the complainants have filed these complaints u/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 against the O.P. alleging deficiency in banking service of non refund of the matured fixed deposits amount.

          2) Upon service of notice O.P remained appeared through his counsel and filed affidavit and objections.  

          3) In support of the claim in the complaints, complainants  have filed their affidavit and original F.D.Rs. are produced by the complainants.  

          4) We have heard the arguments and perused the records.

          5) Now the point for our consideration is that whether the complainants have proved deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. and entitled to the reliefs sought?

          6) Our finding on the point is partly in affirmative, for the following reasons.

:: R E A S O N S ::

7) On the perusal contents of the complaints and affidavit filed by the complainants, the complainants have deposited their amount in OP souhard as detailed below:

Sl. No.	Complaint No.	F.D.R  No.	Amount Deposited	Date of Deposits	Date of maturity/ Renewal	Maturity Amount/ claimed
1	2	3	4	5	6	7
1	464/14	433/52	44,011	28.05.13	28.05.15	49,292
1	465/14	427/52	25,000	23.01.13	23.01.15	28,125
2		428/52	25,000	23.01.13	23.01.15	28,125
3		574	25,000	03.01.09	03.07.15	53,070
1	466/14	330/52	48,000	30.04.12	20.04.15	53,760
2		460/52	30,000	03.02.14	03.02.15	33,600
1	467/16	463/52	48,000	09.05.14	09.05.15	54,000
1	468/16	331/52	48,000	30.04.12	30.04.15	53,760

 

          8)       After maturity of said F.D.Rs. the complainants approached the office of the opponent and requested the opponent to refund the matured F.D.R/s amount, inspite of that opponent went on postponing the same by assigning one or other reasons.   Hence opponent committed deficiency in service as contemplated under the provision of the consumer protection act 1986.

9) On perusal objections of the OP, the OP has denied & disputed the complaint averments and contended that, the complainant has not made Branch and / or the CEO of the Souharda Sahakari as party to the proceedings. Hence present complaints are not maintainable. There had been large scale duplication of the FDRs, it is very difficult to assess genuiness of FDRs. The complainants also not furnished KYC documents as it is mandatory. Hence prays for dismissal of the complaints with cost.

10)    On perusal evidence affidavit of the complainants, the complainants have produced original FD Receipts, they are in the name of complainants. Though the OP has mainly contended that, there had been large scale duplication of the FDRs, it is very difficult to assess genuiness of FDRs. The complainants also not furnished KYC documents as it is mandatory. But the OP has not produced any documents/ evidence to prove their contention. The OP is at liberty to receive KYC documents at the time of release of FDRs amount of the complainants. It is well settled legal position that non payment of the amount deposited, amounts to deficiency in service.

11) Taking into consideration of the facts, evidence on record and the discussion made here before deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. has been proved.

          12) Accordingly, following

ORDER

          The complaint/s are partly allowed.

          The Opponent as shown in the cause title is hereby   directed and liable to pay to the complainant as order below;

Sl. No.	Complaint No.	F.D.R  No.	Amount Deposited	Date of Deposits	Date of maturity/ Renewal	Maturity Amount/ claimed
1	2	3	4	5	6	7
1	464/14	433/52	44,011	28.05.13	28.05.15	49,292
1	465/14	427/52	25,000	23.01.13	23.01.15	28,125
2		428/52	25,000	23.01.13	23.01.15	28,125
3		574	25,000	03.01.09	03.07.15	53,070
1	466/14	330/52	48,000	30.04.12	20.04.15	53,760
2		460/52	30,000	03.02.14	03.02.15	33,600
1	467/16	463/52	48,000	09.05.14	09.05.15	54,000
1	468/16	331/52	48,000	30.04.12	30.04.15	53,760

 

The matured F.D.Rs. amount mentioned in column No.7 with future interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of maturity, as mentioned in column No.6 till realization of the entire amount.

 

          The Opponent is liable to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.3,000/- in each case towards costs of the proceedings.

 

         The Order shall be complied within 30 days from the date of the order.

 

 

The original order shall be kept in complaint No.464/2016 and the true copy in other clubbed cases.

 

         (Order dictated, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on this 30 June 2017)

 

 

 

 

MSR