Karnataka

Belgaum

CC/358/2016

Ramgouda S/o Malakappa Dangi - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sri. Sanganna Gugawad - Opp.Party(s)

S R Hiremath

27 Jun 2017

ORDER

IN THE DIST.CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM BELAGAVI.

 

Dated this 27 June 2017

 

Complaint No. 358/2016

 

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

                        2) Smt.Sunita                            Member

-***-

Complainant/s:

Sri. Ramagond s/o.Malakappa Dangi,

Age: 45 years, Occ: Ex-Serviceman,

R/o. Telasang Tal.Athani, Dist.Belagavi.

Now at Gasti Plot, Ramanagar, Athani.

 

(By Shri. S.R.Hiremath, Adv)

 

                                                          V/s.

Opponent/s:

 

1. Sri.Sanganna Gugawad, Chairman of Shri Basaveshwar Credit Souhardh Sahakari Niyamit, Satti, having its branch at Janata Co-Op. Building, Near Sankirna School, Anantpur Circle, Athani, Dist.Belagavi. 

 

2. The Manager

Shri Basaveshwar Credit Souhardh Sahakari Niyamit, Satti, having its branch at Janata Co-Op. Building, Near Sankirna School, Anantpur Circle, Athani, Dist.Belagavi.     

 

3. The Accountant

Shri Basaveshwar Credit Souhardh Sahakari Niyamit, Satti, having its branch at Janata Co-Op. Building, Near Sankirna School, Anantpur Circle, Athani, Dist.Belagavi.    

 

 

(OP.1 & 2 by Sri.R.S.Kamat, Adv. and OP-3 Exparte)

 

 (Order dictated by Smt.Sunita, Member)

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) Upon service of notice the OP.1 and 2 appeared through their counsel but not filed their objections and evidence affidavit. Inspite of service of notice, OP-3 remained absent, hence placed exparte.

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

          4) We have heard the argument of the counsel of the complainant and OPs arguments is taken as heard 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 had kept FD in OP society an amount of Rs.80,000/- on 01.10.2012 under FDR No.0932 & OPs have agreed to refund the said FD amount on 01.11.2013 with maturity value of Rs.88,666/-. After the date of maturity of the said FD amount the complainant requested the OPs to refund the said FD amount with accrued interest, but OPs postponed the same on one or other reasons. Ultimately after repeated requests of the complainant, the OPs have paid totally Rs.30,000/- on different dates to the complainant as part payment. Hence the OPs are bound to make payment of Rs.58,666/- i.e. remaining matured FD amount along with accrued interest from 02.11.2013 till realization. Complainant has repeatedly requested the OPs many time to make the payment of the said balance matured FD amount with interest, but OPs failed to do so. Hence the complainant issued legal notice to OPs on 28.07.2016 calling upon OPs to pay the remaining FD amount with interest. But the OPs not received the said legal notice and it returned with an endorsement as “unclaimed” on 01.08.2016.  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.

        8)        On perusal original F.D.R and its receipt produced by the complainant, the FDR is standing in the name of the complainant, after maturity of F.D.R the opponents have not paid total F.D.R amount. As per the endorsement on the back side of the FDR, the OPs have paid totally Rs.30,000/- on different dates to the complainant as part payment of the said FDR. Hence the OPs are bound to make payment of Rs.58,666/- i.e. remaining matured FD amount along with accrued interest from 02.11.2013 till realization. Though the OP.1 and 2 appeared through their counsel but not filed their objections and evidence affidavit. Inspite of service of notice, OP-3 remained absent, hence placed exparte. Hence, the claim of the complainant that inspite of the demands made the balance FDR amount remained unpaid, has to be believed and accepted. It is well settled legal position that non payment of the amount deposited, amounts to deficiency in service.

      9) 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.

       10) Accordingly the following

 

:ORDER:

          The complaint is partly allowed.

          The Opponents. 1 to 3 as shown in the cause title are hereby jointly and severely directed and liable to pay  the matured  FDR No.0932 balance amount of Rs.58,666/- to the complainant with future interest @9% P.A. from 02.11.2013 till realization of the entire amount. 

          Further, the Opponents. 1 to 3 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 cost 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: 27 June 2017)

 

 

 

MSR