Karnataka

Belgaum

CC/291/2014

Prabhakar A Karade - Complainant(s)

Versus

Shree Jyotirling Ur Cr Sou Saha Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

M.S.Patil.

19 Apr 2017

ORDER

IN THE DIST.CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM BELAGAVI.

 

Dated this 19^th day of March 2017

 

Complaint Nos. 291/2014

 

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

                        2) Smt.Sunita                            Member

-***-

Complainant/s:

Sri. Prabhakar s/o.Atmaram Kharade,

Age: 65 years, Occ: Pensioner,

R/o.Nipani, Tq.Chikodi, Dist.Belagavi.

                            

(By Shri. M.S.Patil, Adv)

 

                                                          V/s.

Opponent/s:

 

1)      Shri. Jyotirling Urban Credit Souhard Sahakari Ltd., Nipani, Tq. Chikkodi, Dist. Belagavi. R/by its Board of Committee.

 

1A)    The Chairman, Shri. Dinkar-rao S/o.Dhondiba Londe, Age:Major, Occ: Business & Chairman, R/o.Dhairyasheel, Behind Prabhat Talkies, Kokane Galli, Nippani, Tq. Chikkodi, Dist. Belagavi. 

 

1B)    The Director, Annasaheb Dhondiba Bongarade, Age: Major, Occ: Business & Director, R/o.Gayakwadi (Near Nipani) Tq. Chikkodi, Dist. Belagavi. 

 

1C)    The Director, Baburao S/o.Vithal Patil, Age: Major, Occ: Business & Director, R/o.Opposite Babasaheb Ambedkar Cultural Hall, Bhima Nagar, (Utencils Manufacturer), Nipani, Tq. Chikkodi, Dist. Belagavi. 

 

1D)    The Director, Prakash Vasant Nagavankar, Age: Major, Occ: Director, R/o.Vijayshiv Palace, Opp: Dr. Kurbetti General Hospital, Old P.B.Road, Nipani, Tq. Chikkodi, Dist. Belagavi. 

 

1E)    The Director, Dilip Ishwar Patil,  Age: Major, Occ: Director, R/o.Chikkalwad, Tq. Chikkodi, Dist. Belagavi. 

 

1F)    The Director, Ashok Shivaji Nirmale, Age: Major, Occ: Director, R/o.Nipani, Tq. Chikkodi, Dist. Belagavi. 

 

1G)    The Director, Smt.Shobha Raghunath Bongarade, Age: Major, Occ: Director, R/o.Gayakawadi (Near Nipani), Tq. Chikkodi, Dist. Belagavi. 

 

1H)    The Secretary, Avinash Madhukar Bongarade, Age: Major, Occ: Secretary, R/o.Nipani, Tq. Chikkodi, Dist. Belagavi. 

 

(Op.1(A) (B) (D) (E) (F) (G) & (H) Ex-parte. OP.1(C) Dismissed)

 

 

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

 

ORDER

          U/s.12 of the C.P. Act, complainant has filed the complaint against the O.Ps. alleging deficiency in service of non payment of the F.D.R. amount.

          2) In-spite of service of notice O.Ps. 1(A) (B) (D) (E) (F) (G) & (H) remained absent. Hence, placed ex-parte. During the pendency of proceedings OP.1(C) reported as expired, hence claim against OP.1(C) is abated.

          3) In support of the claim in the complaint, complainant has filed his affidavit and original F.D.R is produced by the complainant.

          4) We have heard the argument of the counsel of the complainant and perused the records.

          5) Now the point for our consideration is that whether the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of the O.P’s. 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 perusal contents of the complaint and affidavit filed by the complainant, the complainant on the assurances given by OPs with regard to their scheme of FD and better rate of interest, the complainant had invested his saved money Rs.4 lakhs as FD in OPs sahakari under FDR No.1227 on 07.01.2003 for period of 46 days & the same was matured on 21.02.2003 and maturity amount comes to Rs.4,07,562/-.

 

        8) The complainant submits that, after the maturity of the above said FDR he approached the OPs on so many occasions and requested for release of the said FDRs amount with interest. But OPs went on postponing the same by assigning one or other reason and till today the OPs have not paid the amount nor heed to the requests of complainant. Being frustrated by the attitude of OPs, the complainant issued legal notice to OPs on 07.01.2014 through his counsel. The said notice came to be returned with an endorsement on 16.01.2014 as ‘door closed’. Hence opponents committed deficiency in service as contemplated under the provision of the consumer protection act 1986. Therefore the complainant is constrained to file this complaint against OPs.

        9)        On perusal documents F.D.R produced by the complainant, the FDR is standing in the name of the complainant. On perusal evidence affidavit of the complainant, after maturity of F.D.R the opponents have not paid F.D.R amount. Hence, the claim of the complainant that inspite of the demands made the amount remained unpaid, has to be believed and accepted. After service of the notice the OPs failed to appear before the forum hence placed as ex-parte. Hence it is well settled legal position that non payment of the amount deposited, amounts to deficiency in service.

      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 is partly allowed.

          The Opponents. 1(A) (B) (D) (E) (F) (G) & (H) as shown in the cause title are hereby jointly and severely directed and liable to pay   FDR No.1227 maturity amount to Rs.4,07,562/- to the complainant with interest @9% P.A. from the date of maturity till realization of the entire amount. 

          Further, the Opponents. 1(A) (B) (D) (E) (F) (G) & (H) as shown in the cause title are hereby jointly and severely directed and liable to pay   a sum of Rs.3,000/- to the complainant towards costs of the proceedings.

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

(Order dictated, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on: 19^th day of March 2017)

 

 

 

MSR