Karnataka

Chitradurga

CC/110/2011

Chandrakantha.B.R S/o Nagaraj - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sri Sampigae Siddeshwara urban Co-op Bank Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

Sri.P.S.Manjunath

05 May 2023

ORDER

COMPLAINT FILED ON:15/12/2011

DISPOSED ON:23/05/2012

APPEAL ORDER ON: 06/12/2017

                                                  REMANDED COMPLAINT ON: 21/06/2019

REMANDED ORDER ON: 05/05/2023

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHITRADURGA.

 

REMANDED COMPLAINT

 

C.C.NO:110/2011

DATED: 5th May 2023

 

COMPLAINANT/S	Chandrakantha B.R       S/o Nagaraj, Aged about 30 years,       Agriculturist,R/o Yaraballi,       HiriyurTaluk, Chitradurga District.   K.R.Pushpalatha,       D/o Late Ramaiah,Aged about 45       Years,Agriculturist,R/o Yaraballi,       Hiriyur Taluk.   (Rep by Sri.P.S.Manjunath, Advocate,)
V/S
OPPOSITE PARTIES	Sri Sampigesiddeshwara Urban        Co-operative Bank Ltd.,        Chitradurga by its official        Liquidator /Administrator & Ex        Officio The Deputy Registrar of Co-        operative societies,       Chitradurga District,        Chitradurga B.L.Gowda Layout,        Chitradurga-577501.   (Rep by Sri.Khalid Ahamed, Advocate,)   The Reserve Bank of India,        Urban Banks Department,        10/3/8, Nrupathunga Road,        Bangalore.          (In person)

 

 

 

:: ORDER ::

 

By Smt. B.H.YASHODA, B.A., LL.B., LADY MEMBER.

 

 

This complaint has been filed by complainants No.1 & 2 against OPs U/s 12 of C.P Act 1986 to pay the two fixed deposit amount of Rs.50,000/- respectively with costs and interest etc., Total Rs.59,500/- The Hon’ble commission is after hearing the matter on merits the complaint was dismissed on 23/05/2012. Thereafter the complainants against this commission order preferred an appeal before the Hon’ble Karnataka State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Bangalore in Appeal No.1212/2012, in the said Appeal after hearing the matter the Hon’ble State Commission consequently set aside the impugned order dated 23/05/2012 for consumer complaint No.110/2011 by District Consumer Dispute Redressal  Commission, Chitradurga with a direction to the District Commission to restore the same in its original number and the complainants are at liberty to file an application u/s 12(1) (c) of the CP Act, 1986 seeking permission to file a complaint by both the complainants at a time.  The District Forum shall consider the same in accordance with law to proceed in the matter and to dispose of the same on merits.  After the said matter taken into consideration and Notice was issued to both the parties respectively both their counsels have appeared and contested the case.

 

2. The Brief facts of the complaint is as follows:

The complainants stated in the complaint that, Late Kenchamma wife of Late H. Ramaiah had fixed deposit with Sri Sampige siddeshwara Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd., Chitradurga in F.D. No.1277 dated:05/02/2003 for Rs.50,000/- with interest at 7% p.a. for 183 days in the beginning and later renewed for further period 183 days from 05.02.2004 as per the endorsement made by the manager of the Bank.  The deposit holder Kenchamma died on 20/05/2010 and complainant No.1 is her nominee and grandson.  It is also stated that complainant No.2 is fixed deposit holder with the Sri.Sampige siddeshwara Urban co-operative Bank Ltd., Chitradurga in FD No. 1278 dated 06/02/2003 for Rs.50,000/- repayable with interest at 7% p.a. for 183 days in the beginning and later renewed on 06/07/2004 for the further period.  In the meanwhile date of maturity deposit the management was superseded and the Deputy Registrar of co-operative societies, Chitradurga was appointed as liquidator and administrator to the said Bank.  The depositor told with claim will be settle in due course of time further receipt of the funds from OP.2 i.e., RBI through D.I.C.G.C.  After reading from publication made by the Bank and OP-2 who was provided funds for repayment to deposit holders complainant No.1 & 2 have approached the office of Liquidator i.e., OP-1 and they failed to settle the claim.  In spite of demands and notice till today OPs have not settled the claim.  Through reply notice dated: 21/23.09.2011 OP-1 has stated 2 deposit receipts of complainants as stated above have been closed on 05/02/2004 and again on 14/10/2011 and payments have already made as revealed from the records.  OP No. 1 & 2 aware the Bank was superseded for misappropriation of funds playing fraud of the customers which resulted in loss and closure of the Bank.  Complainants are innocent depositors and they are in possession original FD receipts and without holding any enquiry as to the alleged closure of F.D account OP-1 has repudiated the claim and so OPs have committed deficiency of service and so this complaint has been filed and etc., and prayed for allow the complaint.

 

        3. The service of notice, OPs appeared through their counsel and have filed version and stated that complainant No.1 & 2 have filed common complaint which is not maintainable in law.  It is further stated that Sri. Sampige Siddeshwara Urban co-operative Bank Ltd., has wound up on 26/07/2006 and liquidator has been appointed for the said Bank.  It is also stated that the fixed deposit amount account No.1277 dated: 05/02/2003 has been closed on 05/02/2004 and FD No.1278 dated: 06/02/2003 was closed on 05/02/2004 as per records maintained by the Bank.  It is admitted that Bank had insured deposits all the depositors with the deposit insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation.  The OP-1 cannot release any money to the complainants in respect of closed deposits account of depositors cannot be treated as part of the deposit for extending the deposit insurance cover by the DICGC U/s. 2(g) of the DICGC Act 1961.  It is denied that complainants have in possession of original FD receipts.  It is admitted that complainants have got issued a legal notice and it was properly replied since the transaction of closure relating to 05/02/2004.  The bank was in existence and previous management is irresponsible for the alleged fraud resulted in loss and closure of Bank and other allegations are denied.  It is also stated that as per section 118 (2) of Karnataka Co-Operative Societies Act this complaint is not maintainable as permission was not obtained.  So as per the section 74 and rule 33 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act case against liquidator is not maintainable and etc., and prayed for dismissal of complaint.

 

        4. OP-2 has appeared in person and filed detail version stated that as per section 45 W of the Banking regulation Act, 1949 (AACS) when the Co-Operative bank is under liquidation it is outside the regulatory purview of RBI and there is rule in the present case.  It is stated that section 2 (1) (g) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has not offered any service to the complainant and so as per section 2(1) (d) C.P. Act there is no deficiency in service of OP-2 there is no privity of contract or contractual obligation between the complainants and RBI.  As such case against RBI is not maintainable.  It is also stated that RBI exercises its statutory functions and regulatory powers under the Banking Regulation Act of 1949 (ACCS).  But there is no obligation on the part of OP-2 and so case against RBI is not maintainable as per the Hon'ble National Dispute Redressal Commission, New Delhi in their Judgment in
I (1991) CPR 661 in Virendra Prasad V/s.  Reserve Bank of India & others since the RBI is not a party to the contract between the complainant or OP-1 with the OP-2.  So there cannot be any cause of action against RBI.  Therefore complaint is bad for mis-joinder of party.  It is also stated that since the Sri Sampige siddeshwara Urban co-operative Bank Ltd., is under liquidation.  RBI has no role to play in the matter and the claims of the depositors are required to be considered as per the provisions of DICGC and Karnataka Co-operative Society's Act.  Hence DICGC is also required to be impleaded, the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary party and it is liable to be dismissed.  It is further stated that since RBI is a statutory body constituted under the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934, the Banking Regulation Act, 1949.  It is meant for making banking regulation and policy RBI is merely exercising its statutory functions as statutory authority charged with the task of enforcing provisions of the statutes.  The RBI cannot be sent to rendering to any banking service to the complainants.  So there is no consumer relationship between complainants and the OP.2.  The averment made in Para 2 and 3 in the complaint it is not party to the said transaction so said averment are not admitted.  It is admitted that Op has issued notice sent by the complainants and directed the OP No.1 to verify allegations made in the complaint and reply to the complainants and other allegation made in the Para 5 of complaint are denied.  The allegation made in Para 6 and 7 complaint are denied.  The alleged cause of action is denied.  It is further stated that complainants are not entitled for any relief and complaint itself is not maintainable against OP-2 and etc., and prayed for dismissal of complaint with exemplary cost.

 

5. After remained, from state commission at Bangalore, the complainant No.1 examined through Chief Affidavit as P.W-1, but not produced any additional documents hence the consider earlier document Exhibit A-1 to A-9.  The OP No.1 examined D.W-1 by through Chief Affidavit and produced documents as marked Exhibit B-1 to B-4 OP No.2 no any lead the evidence and not produced any documents hence OP No.2 evidence taken as nil.

 

6. Now the points that arise for our consideration for

    decision of above complaint is that.

 

1. Whether the complainant No.1 proved that Kenchamma had made fixed deposit of Rs.50,000/- under FD No.1277 dated 05/02/2003 and it was renewed on 05/02/2004 and said depositor died on 20/05/2010 and this complainant No.1 as made as nominee cum grandson and OP No. 1 & 2 have failed to pay the said amount and thereby committed deficiency in service?

 

2. Whether the complainant No.2 proves she deposited the amount of Rs.50,000/- on 06/02/2003 in FD No.1278 it was renewed on 06/07/2004 and OP-2 has failed to repaid said amount after maturity and thereby committed deficiency of service and entitled for the relief as prayed for in the complaint?

 

3. What order?

 

 

7. Our findings on the above points are as under:

 

    Point No. 1: Affirmative

              Point No. 2: Affirmative

              Point No. 3: As per final order

 

 

:: REASONS ::

 

         8. Point No.1 & 2:- There is no dispute that deceased Late Kenchamma wife of Late H.Ramaiah had fixed deposit with Sri Sampige siddeswara Urban Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Chitradurga in FD No.1277 dated:05/02/2003 for Rs.50,000/- with interest at 7% P.A for 183 days in the beginning and later renewed for further period 183 days from 06/07/2004 as per the endorsement made by the manager of the Bank that is Exhibit-A-2.  The deposit holder Kenchamma died on 20/05/2010 and complainant No-1, nominee and grandson of died Kenchamma and same also complainant No.2, is fixed deposit holder with the Sri Sampige siddeswara Urban Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Chitradurga in FD No.1278 dated:06/02/2003 for Rs.50,000/- repayable with interest at 7% P.A for 183 days in the beginning and later renewed on 06/07/2004 for the further period, in the meanwhile date of maturity deposit the management was superseded and the Deputy Register of Co-Operative Societies chitradurga was appointed as liquidator and administrator to the said Bank then the complainants have approached the OP 1 and they failed to settled the claim in spite of demands and notice till today OPs have not settled the claim.  Through reply notice dated on 21/23-09-2011 OP 1 has stated 2 deposit receipts of complainants as stated have been closed as 05/02/2004 and again on 14/10/2011 and payments have already made as revealed from the records OPs 1 and 2 aware the Bank was superseded for misappropriation of funds playing fraud of the customers which resulted in loss and closure of the Bank.  The OPs have admitted deposits as per record in FD.No.1277 and FD.No.1278.  But the OP No.1 stated in version two deposit receipt closed on 5/2/2004.  The closed Deposit will not come under the definition of U/S 2(g) OF the DICGC Act 1961, and also stated that as per Section 118 (2) of Karnataka Co-Operative Societies. Act this complaint is not obtained, and also as per the Section 74 Rule 33 of the Karnataka Co-Operative Societies Act against liquidator case is not maintainable, OP 2 as also stated in version as per Section 45W of the Banking regulation Act 1949 (AACS) when the Co-Operative bank is under liquidation it is outside the regulatory purview of RBI and there is rule in the present case, and Section 2(1) (g) of the consumer protection Act 1986 has not offered and service to the complainant and so as per Section 2(1) (d) Consumer Protection Act there is no deficiency in service of OP 2, there is no privity of contract or contractual obligation between the complainants and RBI.  As such case opponent RBI is not maintainable the Hon'ble Commission perused evidence and documents filed by complainant and opponents.  On their circumstances the Hon'ble commission The complaint filed by complainants under the Consumer Protection Act 1986 of Section 12 is hereby dismissed on 23/05/2012.

 

        9. The complainants filed appeal against this commission order dated:23/05/2012, before the State Commission at Bangalore in Appeal No.1212/2012 and observed and discussed looking to the materials placed before this commission. 

 

        10. The Hon'ble State Commission observed that the complainants is not asking the relief of alleged misappropriation of in the society.  The complainants are very much interested in getting there amount back from the society, in the circumstances Section 118  in Karnataka Co-Operative Societies Act is not a bar to try the present complaint.  Therefore, the reasons assigned by the district Forum in this regard are not just and proper and further observed that the complaint also dismissed for permission required Under Section 12 (1) (c) of consumer protection Act 1986, admittedly there are two complainants with two different fixed deposits and two cause of action.  In the circumstances the complainants should have obtained necessary permission has a required Under Section 12 (1) (c) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 before proceedings against the society.  That is not done by the complainants.  In the circumstances, it would be just and proper to remand the matter by setting aside the impugned order of this commission dated on 23/05/2012.  In this case after remaind from The Karnataka State Commission Bangalore the OP No.1 filed Chief Affidavit and 4 documents produced as marked Exhibit B-1 to B-4 i.e., Exhibit B-1 appointing of liquidator orders, Exhibit B-2 and B-3, fixed deposits receipts and Exhibit B-4, Authorization letter.

 

        11. On perused evidence, documents of the complainants and OPs.  There is no disputed deceased Kenchamma has kept the amount of Rs.50,000/-fixed deposit in FD.NO.1277, dated:05/02/2003 repayable with interest at 7% P.A 183 days and it was renewed on  06/07/2004 that is Exhibit A-2 FD Receipt and also same complainant No.2, FD Receipt bearing No.1278, that is Exhibit A-1 and also it is not in disputed the OP No.1 stated in Affidavit F.D receipts No.1277 and 1278, closed on 05/02/2004.  The closed deposits will not come under the definition of Section 2 (g) of DICGC Act 1961.  But the OP No.1 not produce any document with regard to closed F.D.S of complainants, As Per Exhibit B-1, "¸ÀªÀiÁ¥ÀPÀgÀÄ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¸ÀºÀPÁgÀ ¸ÀAWÀUÀ¼À PÁAiÉÄÝ 1959, PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¸ÀºÀPÁgÀ ¸ÀAWÀUÀ¼À ¤AiÀĪÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ 1960 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¨sÁgÀwÃAiÀÄ j¸ÀªÀð ¨ÁåAPï / F PÀbÉÃjAiÀÄ ¤zÉÃð±À£À ¸ÀÄvÉÆÛïÉUÀ½UÉ C£ÀĸÁgÀªÁV ¨ÁåAQ£À D¹Û dªÁ§ÝjUÀ¼À «¯ÉêÁj PÀæªÀÄ vÉUÉzÀÄPÉƼÀîvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ JAzÀÄ EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.   But in this case the complainants are very much interested in getting there amount back from the society so the Under Section 118 (2) of Karnataka Co-operative Society Act is not bar that the Hon'ble State Commission observed and remanded U/s 12(1) (c) of C.P. Act 1986 seeking permission to file a complaint by both the complainants at a time.

 

The Hon'ble supreme court Judgment in the year 2020 (1)  Page No.631 Consumer Protection Act 1986 Section 12(1) (c)-Joint complaint it is alleged that there is deficiency of service on part of respondent opposite party in to respect of buyer is agreement executed between respective complainants and opposite party when specific application was moved seeking permission for filing joint application and having passed order of admission by issuing notice on such application commission ought not to have rejected application by impugned order set aside and mater remitted back to National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission New Delhi.  With a direction to consider the matter afresh and dispose of complaint case on its own merits.

 

 

  12. Hence, this authority is aptly applicable in this complaint and it is shows that the OPs are deficiency in-service release of FD amounts to complainants as such the point No.1 and 2 are affirmative.

 

13. Point No.3:  As discussed on the above points and for the reasons stated therein we pass the following.

 

:: ORDER ::

       The complaint filed by the complainants Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 is partly allowed. 

 

       It is ordered that the OPs are hereby directed to pay of Rs.50,000/- in FD No.1277 to the complainant No.1 and interest 7% P.A. from the date of maturity till its realization.

 

       It is ordered that the OPs are hereby directed to pay the FD of Rs.50,000/- in FD.No.1278 to the complainant No.2 and interest 7 % P.A from the date of maturity till its realization. 

 

       It is ordered that the OPs are directed to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/-towards mental shock and mental agony and cost of Rs.5,000/- of the complainant No.1.

 

        It is ordered that the OPs are directed to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/-towards mental shock and mental agony and cost of Rs.5,000/- of the Complainant No.2.

 

           It is further ordered that, the OPs are hereby directed comply the above order within 30 days from the date of this order.    

 

         Communicate the order to both the parties.

 

(Dictated to the Stenographer, typed by him, the transcript corrected, revised and then pronounced in the open commission by us on 5^th May 2023.)

 

        Sd/-                                 Sd/-                                  Sd/-

     LADY MEMBER                 MEMBER                PRESIDENT

 

-:ANNEXURES:-

 

 

Witness examined on behalf of Complainant:

 

PW-1: Chandrakantha B.R S/o Nagaraj, by way of affidavit evidence.

 

Documents marked on behalf of Complainant:

 

01	Ext. A-1	Sri Sree Sampige Siddeswara Co-Operative Bank Deposit receipt dated:06/02/2003.
02	Ext. A-2	Sri Sree Sampige Siddeswara Co-Operative Bank Deposit receipt dated:05/02/2003.
03	Ext. A-3	Legal Notice dated:1/8/2011.
04	Ext. A-4	Reply Notice dated:21/09/2011.
05	Ext. A-5	Reserve Bank of India letter dated:03/10/2011.
06	Ext. A-6	Copy of Notice dated:14/10/2011.
07	Ext. A-7	Indian Postal Acknowledgment dated:25/10/2011.
08	Ext. A-8	Indian Postal Acknowledgment dated:24/10/2011.
09	Ext. A-9	Reserve Bank of India letter dated:15/11/2011.

 

Witness examined on behalf of opponent No.1:

 

1. Sri K.Krishna Murthy S/o D.Kyatappa, by way of affidavit evidence.

 

Documents marked on behalf of opponent No.1

 

01	Ext.B-1	¸ÀºÀPÁgÀ ¸ÀAWÀUÀ¼À dAn ¤§AzsÀPÀgÀÄ, (¥ÀlÖt ¨ÁåAPÀÄUÀ¼À «¨sÁUÀ) ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ EªÀgÀ £ÀqÀªÀ½UÀ¼ÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ:31/07/2006.
02	Ext.B-2	Sri Sree Sampige Siddeswara Urban Co-Operative Bank Chitradurga Fixed Deposit dated: 05/02/2003.
03	Ext.B-3	Sri Sree Sampige Siddeswara Urban Co-Operative Bank Chitradurga Fixed Deposit dated: 06/02/2003.
04	Ext.B-4	Deputy Registrar of Co-Operative Societies and the Liquidator of Sri Sampige Siddeswara Urban Co-Operative Bank Limited, Chitradurga, Authorization letter dated:23/07/2021.

 

Witness examined on behalf of opponent No.2:

 

Nil

 

Documents marked on behalf of opponent No.2:

 

Nil

 

 

                   Sd/-                                 Sd/-                                  Sd/-

     LADY MEMBER                 MEMBER                PRESIDENT