BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION BAGALKOT.

                           C.C.No.41/2019 to 45/2019

                        Date of filing: 01/04/2019

                                                                           Date of disposal: 14/07/2021                                                

PRESENT :-

-V/S -

By  Smt. Sharada K. President.

                                               COMMON JUDGEMENT

1.      The above said complaints have been filed by the complainants under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (herein after referred to as Act) against the Opposite Parties (in short the “Ops”) directing them to pay the invested amount and maturity value along with interest thereupon to the complainants till realization and pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- each of the complainant towards the mental agony and Rs.5,000/- towards cost of the proceedings to the each complainant and any other reliefs deemed fit under the circumstances of the cases.

2.      Since the common question of law and facts involved in these five complaints, they were taken-up together for disposal by the Common Judgments by this Commission.

          The brief facts leading to these five complaints are that,

The case of the complainants are that, as per the requests of the OPs, the complainants have invested the amount with OPs Shri.Laxmi Venkateshwar Sahakari Vividodesh Sang on various dates of the respective Complaints. The details of amounts invested are as shown below;

          It is further complainants contended that, the prematurity of respective F.D. amounts and matured F.D. amount and Share Certificate amount the complainants have approached and requested the OPs to refund the above said invested F.Ds. amount and Share Certificate amount, the OPs avoided to make payments by giving one or the other reasons. Inspite of repeated request, the OPs failed to refund the above said invested amount to the complainants and it is obligatory on the part of the OPs to refund the above said respective amounts to the complainants and thereby OPs committed the deficiency of service as contemplated under the provision of C.P. Act 1986.

          Finally the complainants have got issued legal notices to the OPs through their Counsel on dtd: 03.12.2018 and the Ops after receiving the legal notice, the OP.No.1 to 3 have given replied on dtd:20.12.2018 and 07.01.2019 by denying all the facts of legal notice and they had washed their hands by shirking the responsibility on other Ops.  Hence, the complainants have constrained to file these complaints.

3.      After service of notice to the O.Ps. The OP.No.1 has appeared through his counsel and filed his objection and OP.No.2, 3, 6 to 11 have appeared through their counsel and OP.No.2 has filed his objection and OP.No.3, 6 to 11 have neither filed written version nor contest the cases and OP.No.4 & 5 have not appear before this Commission, hence this Commission has consider the OP.No.4 & 5 are Ex-parte.

          The OP.No.1 has contended that, the contents of complaints are false, vexatious and not tenable under the law and facts and denies all allegation made out in the complaints and further contended that, Shri.Laxmi Venkateshwar Sahakari Vividoddesh Sangh, Jalihal is a Registered Credit Co-Op. Society and it is a having artificial juridical entity. Hence, the said Co-op. Society is a necessary party to these complaints. Since, the said Co-OP. Society is not at all made as a necessary party to these complaints and further the OP.No.1 was a temporary employee of the above said credit Co-OP. Society and OP.No.1 to know that, the OP.No.2 to 11 are not managing the funds of the society in proper manner then this OP has left the society long back. Later on this OP.No.1 has issued one more resignation letter in writing on dtd:10.10.2018 to OP.No.2 through Registered Post, but the said letter is returned by refusal and the OP.No.1 is being an employee of the said society is no way responsible for the misuse of funds of the society by the management and further the complainants having every right to recover the dues with the help of OP.No.2 to 11 i.e. Executive Committee of the said society. But instead of following the procedure in accordance with law, the complainants have approached this Forum without jurisdiction and there is no deficiency of service on the part of the OP.No.1 and prayed for dismiss the complaints with costs.

            The OP.No.2 has contended that, the complaints filed by the complainants are not bonafide and all the allegations made out in the complaints are not true and the same are denied by this OP.No.2 and further contended that, Shri.Laxmi Venkateshwar Sahakari Vividoddesh Sangh, Jalihal is a society  Registered under the provisions of Karnataka Co-Op Societies Act and dealing with the monetary transactions amount its members and further the complainants are member of the said Sangh and the OP.No.1 is Chief Executive Officer and the OP.No.1 is solely responsible for the day today transactions and affairs of the said Sahakari Sangh and the said Sahakari Sangh is not working properly and honestly because the OP.No.1 is remained absent to the duties and absconded by keeping all the documents relating to the said Sangh and OP.No.1 is Manager and OP.No.2 is President of the Said Sangh and further the OP.No.2 and other responsible Directors intending to initiate necessary legal action to trace the Op.No.1 and take action regarding the irregularities committed by him in day today activities of the Sahakari Sangh. Hence, the OP.No.2 is no way concerned to the repayment of the alleged deposits made by the complainants and there is no deficiency of service on the part of this OP.No.2 and prayed for dismiss the complaints with costs.

 5.     The Complainants have filed their affidavits in support of their claim and produced Original F.D. Receipts, Share Certificates, Copy of legal notice, Reply notices, Acknowledgements and Postal Receipts. On the other hand, the OP.No.1 has filed affidavit and not produced any documents before this Commission and OP.No.2 has not filed affidavit and not produced any documents before this Commission. Hence, this Commission has considered the OP.No.2 affidavit is not filed. Heard the argument on both sides.

Now, the following points that would arise for our consideration in deciding the cases are;

1. Whether the complainants have prove that there is deficiency in service on the part of the OPs for not settling/refunding the payment of F.D. amount and Share Certificate amount?

2. What order?

6.     Our findings on the above points are as fallow;

1. Point No.1  in the Affirmative.
2. As per final Order.

                                                                               R E A S O N S

7.     Point No.1:  We have gone through the pleadings, written version of OP.No.1 & 2 and affidavit evidence of complainants and OP.No.1 and written argument of complainant’s and further case of the complainants are that for the future maintenance of their family the complainants have deposited the amounts in the form of fixed deposits and Share Certificate amount to the OPs. The said fixed deposits and Share Certificate amounts made by the complainants are as under;

          The complainants submits that, as they were in need of money, they approached and requested the OPs for refund of respective premature and matured F.D.s amount with agreed interest and also Share Certificate amounts, but the OPs are one or other reasons postponed for refund of the above said respective amounts with interest to the complainants. Inspite of receipt of legal notice and request, the OPs have not bothered to pay back the complainants F.D. amounts and Share Certificate amounts, these acts of the Ops are clearly shows that, it amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the Ops. Hence, the complainants are constrained to file these complaints against OPs.

          On the other hand, the OP.No.1 contended that, Shri.Laxmi Venkateshwar Sahakari Vividoddesh Sangh, Jalihal is a Registered Credit Co-Op. Society and it is a having artificial juridical entity and the said Co-op. Society is a necessary party to these complaints. Since, the said Co-OP. Society is not at all made as a necessary party to these complaints and OP.No.1 to know that, the OP.No.2 to 11 are not managing the funds of the society in proper manner then this OP has left the society long back. Later the OP.No.1 has issued one more resignation letter in writing on dtd:10.10.2018 to OP.No.2 through Registered Post, but the said letter is returned by refusal and the OP.No.1 is being an employee of the said society and he is no way responsible for the misuse of funds of the society by the management. For that proposition, the OP.No.1 has not lead the affidavit evidence and not produced any cogent and material documents to hold that, Shri.Laxmi Venkateshwar Sahakari Vividoddesh Sangh, Jalihal is a Registered Credit Co-OP Society and this OP.No.1 is no way responsible for the misuse of funds of the society by the management and also the OP.No.1 is not produced any resignation letter by refusal of the OP.No.2 as alleged in the written version. Therefore, we are of the view that, the OP.No.1 has failed to establish as stated in the written version cannot be hold good and it is not acceptable and it has no merit at all.

           Further the OP.No.2 contended that, Shri.Laxmi Venkateshwar Sahakari Vividoddesh Sangh, Jalihal is a society  Registered under the provisions of Karnataka Co-Op Societies Act and dealing with the monetary transactions amount its members and further the complainants are member of the said Sangh and the OP.No.1 is Chief Executive Officer and the OP.No.1 is solely responsible for the day today transactions and affairs of the said Sahakari Sangh and the said Sahakari Sangh is not working properly and honestly because the OP.No.1 is remained absent to the duties and absconded by keeping all the documents relating to the said Sangh and OP.No.1 is Manager and OP.No.2 is President of the Said Sangh and further the OP.No.2 and other responsible Directors intending to initiate necessary legal action to trace the Op.No.1 and take action regarding the irregularities committed by him in day today activities of the Sahakari Sangh. Hence, the OP.No.2 is no way concerned to the repayment of the alleged deposits made by the complainants and there is no deficiency of service on the part of this OP.No.2. In order to prove their contention, the OP.No.2 has not filed any affidavit evidence and not produced any documents to prove their cases. Hence, the OP.No.2 has failed to establish as stated in the written version cannot be hold good and it is not acceptable and it has no merit at all.

            On perusal of the affidavits filed by the complainants and the original F.D. receipts and Share Certificate are produced by the complainants, they are in the name of complainants and further the complainants have need money for the future maintenance of their family, the complainants have approached and demanded to return/refund the Premature/matured F.D.s amount and Share Certificate amounts to the Ops. But, inspite of the demands made by the complainants, the Ops have remained unpaid to the complainants, the contention of the complainants stated in the complaints have to be believed and accepted and it has got on merit.

            It is a duty of the OPs that, when the complainants are ready to take amounts as per policies of society for
premature/matured withdrawals of deposits, a mandatory duty on the part of  OPs to disburse or settle the premature/matured F.D. amounts by giving the make good payments which have been fixed by the complainants in OP No.1 to 11 Sahakari Sangh, but the OP No.1 to 11 nonpayment of premature/matured F.D. receipts amounts and Share Certificate amounts to the complainants and one or the other reason dragging and alleging unattainable contention is amounts to deficiency of service on the part of OPs.

             According to guidelines of RBI if, the depositor who has deposited amount in the  form of F.D. & claiming pre-matured amount, the bank / societies / financial institutions may deduct 3 % p.a. from agreed rate of interest. Hence the OPs may deduct 3 % p.a. on the agreed rate of interest under the respective premature F.D. & liable to pay the amount after deducting interest of 3 % p.a.

              Under such circumstances of the cases, we are of the considered view that, the complainants are entitled the respective matured F.D. receipts amount as per agreed rate of interest, if above said F.D.s are matured and also entitled the future interest @ 6 % P.A. from the date of maturity till realization and further the complainants are entitled the respective Share Certificate amounts with interest @ 4 % p.a. from the date of legal notice till realization of the entire amount and also the complainants are entitled to the compensation of Rs.3,000/- to the each complainant for inconvenience and mental agony. Added to this we also award litigation expenses of Rs.2,000/- to the each complainant. Hence, we answer to Point No.1 in partly Affirmative. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following.

                                                                                             O R D E R

            For the reasons discuss above, the complaints filed by the complainants U/s 12 of the C.P. Act – 1986 in Complaint Nos.41/2019, 42/2019, 43/2019, 44/2019 & 45/2019 are here by partly allowed with costs.

          The Opponents No.1 to 11 are hereby jointly and severely directed and liable to pay the complainants as ordered below;

          The matured F.D. receipts amount as per column.8 with agreed rate of interest paid to the complainants, if said F.D.s are matured along with future interest @ 6 % P.A. from the date of maturity till realization of the entire amount and in column.No.3 Share Certificate No.331 & 332 are entitled as per Column No.4 amount with interest @ 4% p.a. from the date of legal notice till realization.

          The pre-matured F.D. receipts amount mentioned in column No.8 after deducting 3 % p.a. interest from agreed rate of interest as per column No.7 from the date of investment till realization of the entire amount.

          Further, Opponents No.1 to 11 are hereby jointly and severely directed and liable to pay compensation of Rs.3,000/- for inconvenience and mental agony and Rs.2,000/- towards cost of the proceedings to the each complainant.

          The order shall be complied within 2 months from the date of this order.

          Original order be kept in Compt.No.41/2019 & its copy in other connected cases.

          Send the copies of this order to the parties free of cost.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and then pronounced by me in the Open Commission on this 14^th day of July, 2021).