Karnataka

Belgaum

CC/331/2015

Meenakshi N Bongale - Complainant(s)

Versus

Shri Netaji Pandurang Chikale. The Chairman Shri Ganesh Multipurpose Scty - Opp.Party(s)

B T Vibhute

23 May 2017

ORDER

                 

ADDITIONAL  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BELAGAVI

C.C.No.331/2015

 

                     Date of filing: 03/07/2015

 

                                                                  Date of disposal: 23/05/2017

 

P R E S E N T :-

 

	(1)	Shri. A.G.Maldar, B.Com,LL.B. (Spl.) President.
	(2)	Smt.J.S. Kajagar, B.Sc. LLB. (Spl.)  Lady Member.

 

 

COMPLAINANT   -

Smt. Meenakshi Nitinchandra Bongale, Age: Major, Occ: Household, R/o: Plot No.18, Latex Colony, Biroba-Mal, Nipani, Tq: Chikodi, Dist. Belgaum.                     (Rep. by Sri. B.T.Vibhute, Adv.)

 

- V/S -

 

OPPOSITE PARTIES  -

1.               2.

Shri. Netaji Pandurang Chikhale, The Chairman, Shri Ganesh Multipurpose Society, Presently Residing at C/o Sheik, Hamida Manzil, Sasne Nagari, Salokhe Nagar Road, Kolhapur (Maharastra – 416012).                      (Rep. by Sri. Y.G.Gumaj, Adv.)   Smt. Nirmala Tukaram Chikhale, The Secretary, Shri Ganesh Multipurpose Society, Latex Colony, Birobal-Mal, Nipani, Tq: Chikodi, Dist. Belgaum – 591237.                    (Rep. by Sri. V.D.Chougala, Adv.)

 

JUDGEMENT

 

By  Smt. J.S. Kajagar, Lady Member.

 

 

1)         U/s. 12 of the C.P. Act, the complainant has filed the complaint against the O.Ps. alleging deficiency in service of non-payment of the matured F.Ds. amount and Pigmy amount.

 

          2) After issue of notice to the Opponents. The Op.No.1 has appeared through his Counsel and resisted the claim of the complainant by filing his written version and also the Op.No.2 has appeared through his counsel and resisted the claim of the complainant by filing his written version.

          3)       The OP.No.1 has filed his written version and contended that, the claim of the complainant is false, frivolous and vexatious and without impleading all the directors of the above said society as parties and with an intention to harass this OP.No.1 and further the Hon’ble Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint and there is no deficiency of service on the part of the OP.No.1 as such the complaint deserves to be dismissed as not maintainable and further contented that, at the instigation of Smt.Nirmala Tukaram Chikhale who being secretary of the above said society i.e. Op.No.2, the complainant had invested amounts in the Dam Duppat Plan, under the F.D. scheme and the said transaction has not taken place during the period of this OP.No.1 and the said Smt.Nirmala Chikhale has resigned to the society and before resigning the same she has misappropriated the entire amount deposited by the complainant and all the deposited amount was kept with Nirmala Chikhale, her husband and daughter who being one of the directors of the above said society and without impleading them the top noted complaint. Therefore, the OP.No.1 is not at all liable to the said transaction and further contended that, the complainant is not entitled to the maturity of said F.D. amount and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP.No.1 and therefore, the OP.No.1 prayed to dismiss the complaint.

 

4)       The OP.No.2 has appeared and filed his written version and contended that, the details of the fixed deposit as shown in the chart and pigmy amount are not true and correct and the same was not came to the knowledge of the OP.No.2 and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP.No.2 and further contended that, the OP.No.2 has resigned to the said post on 22/11/2010 through registered post on dtd: 28.03.2011 and the same was accepted by the OP.No.1. Therefore, the Op.No.2 is not a secretary to the said society from 22.11.2010 and further the OP.No.2 is unaware and no way concerned to the transaction of the complainant. Therefore, the OP.No.2 has prays to dismiss the complaint against him as the same is not maintainable.

 

 5) To prove the facts alleged in the complaint, the complainant has filed his affidavit and produced original F.D. receipts, Pigmy deposit pass-book, Legal notice and Postal receipts and acknowledgements, which are marked as Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-4. On behalf of the OP.No.1 has filed his affidavit and not produced any document and Op.No.2 has filed his affidavit and produced Resignation letter, two postal acknowledgements and receipts, reply letter dtd:28.03.2011 and postal cover, which are marked as Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-5, for sake of our convenience we have marked P & R series.

 

          6)       We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the both parties and we have perused the records.

 

          7)       Now the point for our consideration is that;

 

1.  Whether the complainant has proved that, there is deficiency in service on the part of the OPs for not settling the matured F.D. amount and pigmy amount?

 

2. What Order?

 

          8)       Our finding on the points are as follows;

 

1.       Affirmative.

          2.       As per final Order.

 R E A S O N S

 

          9)       By perusing the pleadings of complainant, document on record and affidavit evidence, the complainant has kept fixed deposit to the OPs society are as under;

 

 

Sl. No.	Date of FD	FDR No.	FD Amt. Rs.	R.O.I.	Maturity Date
01	19.06.10	306	50000/-	Dam Duppat	19.12.14
02	19.06.10	307	50000/-	Dam Duppat	19.12.14
03	23.10.10	323	50000/-	Dam Duppat	23.04.15
04	23.10.10	324	50000/-	Dam Duppat	23.04.15
05	23.10.10	325	50000/-	Dam Duppat	23.04.15
06	03.02.11	334	50000/-	Dam Duppat	03.08.15
07	03.02.11	333	50000/-	Dam Duppat	03.08.15

 

Further, the complainant has also opened the one pigmy account in the OPs by name Shree Ganesh Multipurpose Society bearing A/c No.262 and deposited of Rs.12,900/- from the month of February – 2011  to January – 2012.

 

          10)     The case of the complainant is that, after the maturity of F.D. amount and pigmy amount deposited, inspite of the demands made by the complainant to the Ops to refund the said amount or settled the F.Ds. amount, but the OPs have failed to refund the maturity value and Pigmy amount. The complainant has contended that, once-again he has requested to the OPs to refund the respective F.Ds. amount alongwith the maturity value and also pigmy amount of Rs.12,900/- with accrued interest. But, the OPs are postponing the same by assigning one or other reasons, without any valid reason. The complainant further contended that, it is obligatory on the part of OPs to refund the respective said F.Ds. amount and also pigmy amount, but OPs are failed to refund the same, this attitude of the Ops  are amounts to deficiency of service as contemplated under the provision of C.P. Act.

 

11)     The OP.No.1 contended that, the claim of the complainant is false, frivolous and vexatious and without impleading all the directors of the above said society as parties and with an intention to harass this OP.No.1 and this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and there is no deficiency of service on the part of the OP.No.1 and further contented that, at the instigation of Smt.Nirmala Tukaram Chikhale who being secretary of the above said society i.e. Op.No.2, the complainant had invested amounts in the Dam Duppat Plan, under the F.D. scheme and the said transaction has not taken place during the period of this OP.No.1 and the said Smt.Nirmala Chikhale has resigned to the society and before resigning the same she has misappropriated the entire amount deposited by the complainant and all the deposited amount was kept with Nirmala Chikhale, her husband and daughter who being one of the directors of the above said society and without impleading them the top noted complaint. To prove this contention, there is no any iota of peace of evidence by the OP.No.1. Hence, the OP.No.1 has failed to prove that, the Op.No.1 was not the Chairman at the time of deposit. So, the contention of the Op.No.1 is not acceptable and not merit in the said contention.

 

12)     The case of the OP.No.2 contended that, the details of the fixed deposit as shown in the chart and pigmy amount are not true and correct and the same was not came to the knowledge of the OP.No.2 and further contended that, the OP.No.2 has resigned to the said post on 22/11/2010 through registered post on dtd: 28.03.2011 and the same was accepted by the OP.No.1. In order to prove the said contention except affidavit there is no any material document to hold that, the Op.No.2 resigned and same has been accepted by the chairman, the Op.No.2 has failed to prove the same by leading the supporting affidavit evidence and producing the material documents by relying the same and even he has not make effort to convince this Hon’ble forum that, the said F.Ds have been deposited after his resignation and it is not the case of the Op.No.2 that, at the time of deposited he was not the secretary. So, under the such circumstances, the Op.No.2 has failed to convince to this Forum. So, the contention of the Op.NO.2 are not acceptable and believable and mere issuing of notice to the chairman is not sufficient to hold that, the same has been accepted.

 

13)     The OP.No.1 & 2 have taken contentions as alleged in the complaint, in order to establish their contention, they  have not filed supporting affidavit evidence and not furnished any material documents to accept the contention contended in their written version. Therefore, in our consider view that, the OPs have failed to establish as alleged in their written version.

 

14)     The complainant has established his case in respect of deficiency of service on the part of the OPs by filing the supporting affidavit evidence and material documents i.e. the original F.D. receipt and Pigmy pass-book is on records the said documents have been marked as Ex.P-1 & Ex.P-2 for sake of our convenience. These facts pleaded in the complaint and stated by the complainant is not disputed or denied by the OPs. Hence, the respective said matured F.D. amount and pigmy amount of Rs.12,900/- payable to the complainant by the OPs bank is proved.

 

15)     No-doubt it is true that, the conduct of OPs in not paying the matured amount as well as pigmy amount, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. The OPs not only liable to pay the respective matured F.Ds. amount as per agreed rate, but they are also liable to pay interest @ 6 % p.a. on the respective matured F.Ds. amount from the date of maturity till the date of payment and also the OPs are liable to pay pigmy amount of Rs.12,900/-. It is just and proper to award a compensation of Rs.2,000/- for inconvenience and mental agony and we also award towards litigation expenses of Rs.1,000/- with cost. Hence, we answer to the above point No 1 in affirmative.  Hence, we proceed to pass the following.

 

 O R D E R

 

          For the reason discuss above, the complaint filed by the complainant U/s 12 of the C.P. Act – 1986 is here by partly allowed with costs.

The Opponent No.1 & 2 jointly and severally are hereby directed to pay the respective F.D. maturity amount as per agreed between the parties (Dam Duppat), further interest @ 6 % p.a. from the date of respective F.Ds. maturity till realization to the complainant.  

          The OP.No.1 & 2 jointly and severally are directed to pay the pigmy amount of Rs.12,900/- as per Pigmy Deposit Pass-Book bearing A/c No.262.  

          Further, the OP.No.1 & 2 jointly and severally are directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.1,000/- towards cost of the proceedings.

          The order shall be complied within 10 weeks from the date of this order, failing to which the complainant is entitled to recover with Additional interest @ 2 % p.a. from the date of complaint i.e. 03/07/2015 till its realization.

           (Order dictated, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on: 23^rd day of May 2017).

   

 

Sri. A.G.Maldar,     President.

Smt. J.S. Kajagar,    Lady Member.