THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE. (ADDL. BENCH)
DATED THIS THE 25th DAY OF AUGUST, 2023
APPEAL NO.1980/2017
PRESENT
SRI RAVI SHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER
SMT. SUNITA C.BAGEWADI, MEMBER
Smt.Nirmala Tukaram Chikale,
Secretary, Ganesh Multipurpose
Society, Latex Colony,
Birobai-Mal, Nippani, ...Appellant/s
Taluq: Chikkodi-591 237
District Belgaum
(By Sri.Yogesh L.Hiremath, Advocate)
-Versus-
1. Smt.Meenakshi Nitinchandra Bongale
Age: Major, Occ: Household,
R/o Plot No.18, Latex Colony,
Birobai-Mal, Nippani, ...Respondent/s
Taluq: Chikkodi-591 237
District Belgaum
2. Sri.Netaji Pandurang Chikhale
The Chairman, Sri Ganesh Multipurpose
Society, Presently at C/o Sheik
Hamida Manzil, Sasne Nagari, Salokhe
Nagar Road, Kolhapur
Maharshtra-416012
(R1-By Sri.B.T.Vibhuthi, Advocate)
(R2-steps not taken)
O R D E R
BY SRI RAVI SHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER
The Appellant/Opposite Party No.2 in complaint No.331/2015 preferred this appeal against the order passed by the District Consumer Commission, Belagavi which directed the respondent no.1 and this appellant to pay maturity value of the fixed deposit with agreed interest and further interest @ 6% per annum from the date of maturity till realization and also directed to pay Rs.12,900/- towards Pigmy deposit and account no.262 and Rs.2,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.1,000/- towards litigation expenses and submits that the complainant had filed a complaint against the respondent no.1 and this appellant alleging deficiency in service in not paying the maturity value of the fixed deposit made by the complainant. The District Commission allowed the complaint and directed this appellant along with respondent no.1 to pay the matured value to the complainant and also directed to pay Pigmy amount of Rs.12,900/- with compensation and litigation expenses. In fact this appellant has personally not liable to pay any amount to the complainant. The receipts produced before the District Commission are not signed by this appellant. Though she was working as a Secretary of the respondent no.1 society, she has not signed the fixed deposit receipts and this appellant do not known whether the complainant has deposited the said amount in the society under fixed deposits. Without considering the said defence the District Commission allowed the complaint and directed this appellant to pay the above said amount.
2. The order passed by the District Commission is not accordance with law. When this appellant had not signed the said fixed deposit receipts is not supposed to pay any amount and there is no any deficiency in service in rejecting the payment to the complainant. Hence prays for set aside the order passed by the District Commission and dismiss the complaint, in the interest of justice and equity.
3. Heard from both sides.
4. On perusal of the certified copy of the order, memorandum of appeal, it is not in dispute that the complainant filed a complaint before the District Commission alleging deficiency in service and sought for payment of the matured amount under the fixed deposit receipts. The complainant had produced a fixed deposit receipt before the District Commission for perusal. The District Commission after considering the said receipts are genuine had directed this appellant along with respondent no.1 to pay the matured amount and also directed to pay a pigmy amount of Rs.12,900/-. This appellant had not challenged the validity of the documents either by way of interrogatories or by way of any cross examination before the District Commission. Mere denial of the signature is not sufficient hold that the documents are concocted or fabricated for the purpose of filing the complaint. Apart from that the complainant has sworn affidavit before the District Commission that he had deposited Rs.50,000/- on 19.12.2010 another Rs.38,854/- on the same day and Rs.50,000/- on 23-10-2010 another Rs.50,000/- on the same day and another Rs.50,000/- on the same day had deposited and obtained fixed deposit receipts and produced before the District Commission. Considered the said documents the District Commission allowed the complaint and directed the Opposite Parties to pay the above said amount. We do not find any irregularity in the order passed by the District Commission and this appellant being received the amount and assured to pay the maturity value, they under obligation to pay the said matured amount. As such, we do not find any merits in the appeal and accordingly the appeal is dismissed as no merits and we proceed to pass the following:-
O R D E R
The appeal is dismissed. No order as to cost.
The impugned order dated 23.05.2017 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Belagavi in CC.No.331/2015 is confirmed.
The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the concerned District Commission to disburse the same to the complainant.
Send a copy of this order to both parties as well as Concerned District Commission.
Member Judicial Member
Jrk/-
