Complaint filed on: 05-08-2016 Disposed on: 16-03-2017
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL FORUM
OLD DC OFFICE COMPOUND, TUMAKURU-572 101
CC.No.108/2016
DATED THIS THE 16th DAY OF MARCH 2017
PRESENT
SMT.PRATHIBHA. R.K. BAL, LLM, PRESIDENT
SMT.GIRIJA, B.A., LADY MEMBER
Complainant: -
Smt.H.S.Gangambika,
W/o. Sri.D.P.Siddagangaiah,
Aged 64 years,
Residing at Siddaganga Nilaya,
6th Cross, 3rd Main Road,
Nrupathunga Extn. Tumakuru
(By Advocate Sri.G.S.Ramasesha)
V/s
Opposite parties:-
1.Sri Sri Uddaneshwara Souharda Credit Co-operative Ltd, Opp. SBM Main Branch, Town police Station Road, Tumakuru
Reptd by its President and its Secretary
2.The President,
Sri Sri Uddaneshwara Souharda Credit Co-operative Ltd, Opp. SBM Main Branch, Tumakuru
3.The Secretary,
Sri Sri Uddaneshwara Souharda Credit Co-operative Ltd, Opp. SBM Main Branch, Tumakuru
(OP No.1 to 3-by Advocate
Sri.G.K.Srinivasa)
ORDER
SMT.PRATHIBHA. R.K. PRESIDENT
This complaint is filed by the complainant against the OP No.1 to 3, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. The complainant prays to direct the OPs to repay the entire maturity amount along with interest and to pay Rs.2,000=00 towards legal notice and Rs.5,000=00 towards legal fee and grant such other relief as prayed in the complaint, in the interest of justice and equity.
2. The brief facts of the complaint is as under.
The complainant is a consumer of 1st OP and OP No. 2 and 3 are the President and Secretary of the 1st OP. The complainant had invested her money under three accounts namely 104, 107 and 167 for Rs.20,000=00 dated 28-8-2003, Rs.50,000=00 dated 1-10-2003 and Rs.1,66,522=00 dated 31-10-2014 respectively. The maturity amounts of Rs.40,000=00 on 28-1-2009, Rs.1,00,000=00 on 1-4-2009 and Rs.1,84,588=00 on 31-10-2015. The first two account No.104 and 107 were renewed further for a period upto 2-8-2014 with further maturity dated shown as 2-8-2015 with maturity amount of Rs.60,800=00 for account No.104 & Rs.1,52,000=00 for account No.107. Thus the OPs are holding deposits amounts of Rs.3,97,388=00 repayable with interests at the same rate as before, from the dates of maturity till the amounts are repaid in full.
The complainant further submitted that, on the maturity of each deposit receipt, the complainant had approached for repayment, which was postponed by the 2nd and 3rd OPs on one pretext or the other. Thereby the OPs have caused loss, mental agony and hardship to the complainant. Hence, the complainant had issued a legal notice dated 3-3-2016 to the OPs and the same was served on the OPs. Instead of repaying deposit amount along with interest, the OPs have replied to the said notice on 9-3-2016 with all unconcerned blames on the husband of the complainant without any proof. Thus it amounts to deficiency of service and irresponsible acts on the part of the OPs. Even till today, the OPs have not arranged to repay the said deposit amount. Hence the present complaint is filed.
3. In response to the forum notice, the OP No.1 and 3 have appeared through their counsel and filed common objection contending interalia as under:
The averments made in the para 1 and 2 of the complaint are not denied by these OPs. The averments made in the para 3 to 5 of the complaint are denied by these OPs. There is no cause of action for the complainant to file the present complaint.
The OPs further submitted that, the 1st OP is the con-operative society. The said society used to lend loans to the members on security. The 1st OP society used to lend joint loans to the members on the basis of recommendation made by the Directors of the society.
The OPs further submitted that, the complainant has deposited the amount with the 1st OP society and the said deposits have matured. The 1st OP society has with held the payment of the matured amount to the complainant for the reasons that, one D.P.Siddagangaiah, the present Director of 1st OP society is the husband of the complainant and he was the President of the 1st OP society for the years 2003-2004 to 2013-2014. During his tenure, he recommended for sanction of joint loans for about 30 members, to the tune of Rs.2,20,000=00. The said members have committed default in repayment of the loan to the society. Thus, the 1st OP society has suffered great hardship and inconvenience, because, the public money is involved and it is not recovered. In this regard, the OPs have requested the said D.P.Siddagangaiah to make necessary arrangements for recovery of the above loan amount from the said members. But the said D.P.Siddagangaiah has not taken any action in the matter and thus the public money is held up with the said persons. At no point of time, the OPs have refused to repay the matured amount to the complainant, when such being the case, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.
The OPs further submitted that, the OPs are ready to repay the matured amount pertaining to complainant’s deposits, immediately after the husband of complainant D.P.Siddagangaiah made arrangement for recovery of the above loan amounts from the loanee. Since, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, hence, the present complaint is maintainable and it is liable to be dismissed. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the complaint with cost, in the interest of justice and equity.
4. In the course of enquiry in to the complaint, the complainant and 3rd OP have filed their affidavit evidence. The complainant has produced documents along with complaint which were marked as Ex-C1 to Ex-C10. The OPs have produced documents which were marked as Ex-R1 to R5. We have heard the arguments of both parties and we have gone through the oral and documentary evidence of both sides meticulously and posted the case for orders.
5. Based on the above materials, the following points will arise for our consideration.
1. Whether there was deficiency in service on the part of the OPs as alleged by the complainant?
2. What Order?
6. Our findings on the above points are;
Point no.1: In the affirmative
Point no.2: As per the final order below.
REASONS
7. On perusal of the pleadings of the complaint, affidavit evidence, objections of the OP and documents produced by both parties, it is an admitted fact that, the complainant had invested her money under three accounts namely 104, 107 and 167 for Rs.20,000=00 dated 28-8-2003, Rs.50,000=00 dated 1-10-2003 and Rs.1,66,522=00 dated 31-10-2014 respectively. The total maturity amounts of Rs.3,24,588=00 and then again the OPs have renewed the maturity amount of Rs.60,800=00 for account no.104 and Rs.1,52,000=00 for account no.107. Thus, the total amount payable by the OPs is Rs.3,97,388=00 with interest.
8. The main contention of the complainant is that, after maturity of the above said accounts, the OPs have not repaid the deposited amount along with interest.
9. Per-contra, the OPs submitted that, one Sri.D.P.Siddagangaiah is the present Director of the 1st OP society and also husband of the complainant, when he was the President of the 1st OP society in the year 2003-04 to 2013-2014, he has recommended for sanction of joint loans for about 30 members to the tune of Rs.2,20,000=00. The said members have committed default in repayment of the loan amount to the 1st OP society. Hence, the 1st OP society has requested the said Sri.D.P.Siddagangaiah to make necessary arrangements for recovery of the above said loan amount from the said members. But, the said Sri.D.P.Siddagangaiah has not taken any action in that matter. Hence the OPs have refused to repay the matured deposited amount along with interest to the complainant.
10. Admittedly, the amount which were deposited by the complainant under account Nos.104 and 107 were matured on 2-8-2015 for a sum of Rs.60,800=00 and Rs.1,52,000=00 respectively and account No.167 was matured on 31-10-2015 for a sum of Rs.1,84,588=00.
11. On perusal of the documents produced by the OPs, it is seen at Ex-R5, Sri.D.P.Siddagangaiah was the President in the year 2003-04 to 2013-14 had sanctioned the loan on behalf of the decision taken by the Executive Committee of 1st OP society. Further on perusal of the entire documents, nowhere in the document, Sri.D.P.Siddagangaiah had undertaken to repay the loan amount, if the loanees did not pay the said loan amount. Moreover, the said Sri.D.P.Siddagangaiah is not surety to the loan taken by the loanees. Further the husband of the complainant who was the President was acting under the official capacity. The only resource left to the OPs is proceeding against the defaulter and the OPs do not have any authority to hold the maturity amount of the complainant.
12. That being the case, the OPs cannot escape from their liability to give maturity amount, only on the ground that Sri.D.P.Siddagangaiah is the husband of complainant, when he was a President of the 1st OP society in the year 203-2004 to 2013-2014, he has recommended for sanction of joint loan for about 30 members to the tune of Rs.2,20,000=00.
13. The action of the 1st OP society in not giving the deposited amount to the complainant, based on the recommended the loan to the 30 members of the society is only an arbitrary, illegal and improper. It is the bounden duty of the OPs and coupled with an statutory obligation of the 1st OP society to return the matured deposited amount to the complainant. Accordingly, we answer this point in the affirmative. In the result, for the foregoing reasons, we proceed to pass the following order.
ORDER
The complaint is partly allowed.
The OP Nos.1 to 3 are jointly and severally directed to repay the matured deposited amount under account Nos.104, 107, and 167 for a sum of Rs.60,800=00, 1,52,000=00 and Rs.1,84,588=00 respectively along with interest @9% per annum from the date of maturity till the date of realization.
The OP Nos.1 to 3 are jointly and severally directed to pay compensation of Rs.10,000=00 and Rs.5,000=00 towards cost of litigation respectively.
This order is to be complied by the OP Nos.1 to 3 within 30 days from the date of this order.
Supply free copy of this order to both parties.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open forum on this, the 16th day of March 2017).
LADY MEMBER PRESIDENT
