CC Filed on 22.09.2009<br /> Disposed on 26.02.2010<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLAR.<br /> <br /> Dated: 26th day of February 2010<br /> <br /> PRESENT:<br /> Sri. G.V.HEGDE, President.<br /> <br /> Sri. T.NAGARAJA, Member.<br /> Smt. K.G.SHANTALA, Member.<br /> ---<br /> <br /> Consumer Complaint No. 129/2009<br /> <br /> Between:<br /> <br /> <br /> J. Mohan Raj,<br /> S/o. Late G. Jothinathan,<br /> Aged about 65 years,<br /> No. 1252, Pipe Line,<br /> 3rd Cross Road,<br /> Robertsonpet,<br /> K.G.F.<br /> <br /> (By Advocate Sri. H. Pavana Chandra Shetty) <br /> <br /> V/S<br /> <br /> 1. The BEML Employees Credit<br /> Co-operative Society Limited,<br /> Est. ARK/B/Reg/3187/dt. 1976-77,<br /> Maharaj Road, Robertsonpet,<br /> K.G.F – 563 122, Kolar District.<br /> Rep. by its Secretary.<br /> <br /> <br /> 2. The BEML Employees Credit<br /> Co-operative Society Limited,<br /> Est. ARK/B/Reg/3187/dt. 1976-77,<br /> Maharaj Road, Robertsonpet,<br /> K.G.F – 563 122, Kolar District.<br /> Rep. by its President. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ….Complainant<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ….Opposite Parties<br /> <br /> ORDERS<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying for a direction against the opposite parties to refund the deposit/s with interest at 21% p.a. and to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- towards mental agony with costs, etc., <br /> <br /> 2. The material facts of complainant’s case may be stated as follows:<br /> That the OP-the BEML Employees Credit Co-operative Society Limited, K.G.F represented by its Secretary and President, is a society registered under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act 1959 and the complainant is a member/associate member of the said society. <br /> <br /> The complainant deposited certain amount/s as detailed below<br /> <br /> Sl.<br /> No. Bill<br /> No. Date of Issue Date of Maturity Deposit<br /> Amount Received Amount Balance Amount Rate of interest<br /> 301 17788 07.05.2009 06.05.2011 3,10,000 Nil 3,10,000 6%<br /> <br /> It is alleged that the OP has issued a deposit receipt for Rs.3,10,000/- containing the terms and conditions of deposit and the OP had agreed to return the deposit amount immediately after maturity period and also agreed to return the said amount whenever the complainant demanded the same. It is alleged that a copy of the said deposit receipt was produced along with complaint (but in fact the copy of said deposit receipt is not produced but copies of some other deposit receipts were produced). It is alleged that the OP is conducting his business in a suspicious way and the OP has reduced rate of interest from 10% p.a. to 6% p.a. from September 2008 and the OP is not opening the office regularly during office hours and it is trying to shift the office from place to place. It is alleged that for these reasons the complainant intended to get back his deposit even before the maturity and made demand for return of the deposit but the OP did not repay and on the other hand harassed the complainant. Therefore the complainant has filed the present complaint. <br /> <br /> 3. The OP appeared and filed version. There is no specific averment either admitting or denying the receipt of deposit alleged in the complaint. However during argument the receipt of said deposit is not disputed and it is submitted that this deposit of Rs.3,10,000/- is the consolidated amount of earlier 10 deposits for different smaller amounts standing in the name of complainant. It is contended that for unforeseen events the financial status of the OP had deteriorated and therefore a meeting of depositors and members were called for and the circumstances were explained to them and it was agreed and resolved in the said meeting to pay the interest at reduced rate of 6% p.a. on the deposits. The following are the grounds stated for the deterioration of financial status of OP.<br /> <br /> i) Heavy amount was taken as loan from DCC Bank, and reciprocally heavy amount was kept in deposit with the said Bank. As there was a ‘run-on-the’ said bank, the bank exercised general lien, without prior intimation, and closed the loan account pre-closing the deposits which was unexpected and unforeseen.<br /> <br /> ii) State Government took policy decision popularly known as HRMS-where under salary of State Government employees were not permitted to be deduced except for the Governmental loans. The salary deduction of instalments of the loan given by this society was abruptly stopped.<br /> <br /> iii) Many of the borrowers among State Government have either gone on transfer or dead or terminated from service. Their loans have been doubtful debts and this being a private loan, it does not find a place in ‘last pay certificate’.<br /> <br /> iv) Earlier the salary of staff of Education Department was disbursed by BEO and later the same was changed to clusters and now again the system is reverted to BEO. This change over has caused lot of problem in regular recovery of loans.<br /> <br /> v) The society gave loans to State Government employees of Kolar District earlier but now with the formation of Chickaballapur District, the entire administration has split and the borrowers from Chickaballapur District are dodging and are not paying the instalment regularly.<br /> <br /> vi) The management of BEML, K.G.F permitted Bharat Earth Movers Employees Association (BEMEA) the official Union, to given loans to employees and the deduction for such BEMEA loans is given preference than the loan of this society. <br /> <br /> <br /> The OP has further contended that it has been making all hectic efforts to come out of the crises and has been repaying the deposits to depositors in installments and this scheme was approved and accepted by the members. Further it is contended that many of the depositors have rushed to this Forum, though they knew the above facts and circumstances. Hence it is contended that there was no deficiency in service and OP stated that it is ready to repay the deposits to the depositors in easy installments. <br /> <br /> 4. The complainant filed affidavit in support of the allegations made in the complaint. The OP filed the version at belated stage, therefore further time was not granted to file its affidavit thinking that it would be repetition of the contentions taken in the version. <br /> <br /> 5. Heard the Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the records. <br /> <br /> 6. It is found that the complainant has not produced the original or the copy of deposit receipt dated 07.05.2009 on which he based his complaint. But he produced copies of 10 other earlier deposits for smaller amounts, the total of which comes to Rs.3,10,000/-. All other earlier deposit receipts contained a term that the deposit shall be for 12/24 months and the interest payable was 10% p.a./10.25% p.a. and in case of premature payment the rate of interest will be reduced by 2%. We think the deposit receipt dated 07.05.2009 must have also contained the same term regarding premature payment and it appears for that reason the complainant has not intentionally produced the said receipt. Admittedly the claim in the present complaint is for premature payment. <br /> <br /> It is found that the deposit receipt dated 07.05.2009 must have been issued for the consolidated amount due under the earlier 10 deposit receipts. It is a fact that the OP is facing financial crisis and has reduced the rate of interest to 6% p.a. from September 2008. Therefore the present deposit for Rs.3,10,000/- is repayable with interest at 6% p.a. as agreed. It is evident that the said deposit is subsequent to September 2008 and it is admitted that the interest at 6% p.a. has been received on monthly basis. The complainant has alleged that he is entitled to higher rate of interest which was being paid for the old deposits. The rate of interest depends on the term agreed between parties. In the present case, if there is a term for reduction of interest by 2% p.a. for premature payment, then the complainant would be entitled to interest at 4% p.a. only. We can say that the OP may not be in a position to repay the entire principal amount of Rs.3,10,000/- at a stretch even at the rate of interest 4% p.a. Therefore we think in the facts and circumstances of the case we need not take into consideration the penalty to be imposed for premature payment. The complainant intends to take back his deposit without waiting till the maturity date. In the above circumstances we think it is justified for return of deposit with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of deposit without imposing any penalty for premature payment. Hence we pass the following:<br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is allowed with costs of Rs.1,000/-. The OP-Society shall repay Rs.3,10,000/- (rupees three lakh and ten thousand only) to complainant with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of deposit less the interest already paid. The amount due under the award shall be paid within 6 weeks from the date of order. <br /> <br /> Dictated to the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced in open Forum this the 26th day of February 2010.<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br />