Karnataka

Belgaum

CC/558/2015

Jeetendra A Shitole - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Chairman Bharathi Mahila Cr Sou Saha Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

S L Magdum

30 Jun 2017

ORDER

                 

ADDITIONAL  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BELAGAVI

C.C.No.557 & 558/2015

Date of filing 18/11/2015

                                                                   Date of disposal:30/06/2017

P R E S E N T :-

 

	(1)	Shri. A.G.Maldar, B.Com,LL.B. (Spl.) President.
	(2)	Smt.J.S. Kajagar, B.Sc. LLB. (Spl.)  Lady Member.

 

 

COMPLAINT NO.557/2015

 

 

COMPLAINANT   -

Ku. Yash S/o Jeetendra Shitole, Age: 14 Years, Occ: Student, Since Minor Rep. by Guardian Grand Mother, Smt.Vasanti W/o Annasaheb Shitole, Age: 60 Years, Occ: Household Work, R/o: Mane Plot, Nipani, Tq: Chikodi, Dist. Belagavi.                     (Rep. by Shri.S.L.Magadum, Adv.)

 

 

COMPLAINT NO.558/2015

 

 

COMPLAINANT   -

Shri.Jeetendra S/o Annasaheb Shitole, Age: 45 Years, Occ: Service, R/o: Mane Plot, Nipani, Tq: Chikodi, Dist. Belagavi.                     (Rep. by Shri.S.L.Magadum, Adv.)

 

 

- V/S -

 

OPPOSITE PARTIES  -

1.             2.

The Chairman, Bharati Mahila Credit Souhard Sahakari Ltd., Nippani, Tq: Chikodi, Dist.Belagavi. (Previously Known as Bharati Mahila Sahakari  Pat Sanstha Ltd.,)                                        (Exparte)   The Secretary, Bharati Mahila Credit Souhard Sahakari Ltd., Nippani, Tq: Chikodi, Dist.Belagavi. (Previously Known as Bharati Mahila Sahakari  Pat Sanstha Ltd.,)                        (Rep. by Sri. S.R. Sakri, Adv.)

By  Sri.A.G. Maldar, President.

 

COMMON JUDGEMENT

 

 

1.      The above 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 F.D. matured amounts as per the respective F.D. receipts with interest and future interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of maturity till complete realization and compensation of Rs.20,000/- each and cost of Rs.10,000/- each also be awarded and any other reliefs deemed fit under the circumstances of these cases.

 

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

 

          The brief facts leading to these complaints are that,

 

The case of the complainants are that, in Compt.No.557/15, the grandmother of the complainant has kept fixed deposit in the name of minor granddaughter with the OPs Society and in Compt.No.558/2015 the complainant has kept fixed deposit in the OPs society and Ops have offered to pay better rate of interest and as such the complainants have kept fixed deposits with Ops society. The details of amounts deposited are as shown below:-

 

In COMPLAINT NO.557/2015

Sl. No.	A/c No.	Deposited Amt.	D.O.I.	D.O.M	R.O.I.	Matured Amt.
01	5351	10000/-	14.01.04	14.07.09	13%	20000/-

 

In COMPLAINT NO.558/2015

Sl. No.	A/c No.	Deposited Amt.	D.O.I.	D.O.M	R.O.I.	Matured Amt.
01	4926	10000/-	02.07.03	02.01.09	13%	20000/-

 

 

 

It is further complainants contended that, after the maturity of F.D. amounts, the complainants have requested to the Ops to return/refund the matured F.D. amounts with interest as agreed by the OP society and at the nick of time to solve the domestic financial problems. But, the OPs society does not heed the request of the complainants and the OPs have failed to refund the F.D. amounts to the complainants and thereby OPs committed the deficiency of service as contemplated under the provision of C.P. Act.

 

Lastly, the complainants have approached the Op.No.2 and demanded them for the immediate release of deposited matured amount with agreed rate of interest, but the Op.No.2 promised to make payment in the first week of November 2015 and further the OPs have not refund the FDs amount to the complainants. Hence, the complainants have constrained to file these complaints.

 

3)  The Complainants have also filed I.A. U/s 24 (A) of C.P. Act praying to condone the delay in filing the Complaint, for the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavits. The Complainants are filed affidavits in support of their I.A., reiterating the facts stated in the Complaints contended that, after the maturity date, the OPs have failed to pay the matured amounts, despites request made by the complainants, but the Ops have failed to pay the said amounts. Further, it is stated that, the cause of delay only because of the OPs assurance of settlement/refund of deposited amount, due to this reason the delay has been caused. Therefore, there is no delay at all. Even otherwise, the delay from the date of maturity to file this complaint was unintentional and the same deserves to be condoned.

 

4.      After issue of notice to the Opponents. The Op.No.1 has neither appeared nor filed any version before this Forum. The Hon’ble Forum considered the OP.No.1 is placed Ex-parte and Op.No.2 has appeared through his Counsel and resisted the claim of the complainants by filing his written version.

 

The OP.No.2 contended in the written version that, the complainants are not entitled to the claims of more than matured amounts and they have not entitled to any interests from the date of maturity onwards and further the main contention of the OP.No.2 is that, the complainants have not approached to the Sahakari/society with due discharge of the amounts, but the complainants have not entitled to further claims of either interest or costs as alleged in the above said deposits does not earn any interests after the maturities and they are not entitle for the interest as agreed in the complaints and there is no any deficiency of service on the part of the Op.No.2 and therefore, the OP.No.2 prayed to dismiss the complaints.

 

5.      The Adv. for complainants have filed their affidavits and produced documents i.e. Original F.D. receipts, for sake of our convenience we have marked as Ex.P-1. On the contrary the OP.No.2 has filed his affidavit and not produced any documents. Heard the argument on both sides.

 

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

 

 

 

01.Whether Complainants made-out a sufficient cause for condonation of delay?

 

02.Whether the complainants have prove that there is deficiency in service on the part of the OPs for not settling/refunding the F.D. amounts?

 

03.What order?

 

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

 

 

01. Point No.1 & 2  in the Affirmative.

02. Point No.3 As per final Order.

 

 

 

R E A S O N S

 

7.      Point No.1 :  By detail scanning the complaint pleadings,  affidavit evidence and document on records of F.D. receipts. The case of the complainants are that, the complainants have deposited the amount in F.D. Scheme on different dates as shown in the respective F.D. receipts produced before the Forum in Ops society. Of course, the Complainants have not specifically mentioned the date of approaching the OPs for demanding to pay the matured F.D. amounts and even also the complainants have not produced a single document to show that, the complainant has approached to the OP society.

 

        The Complaints have filed I.A. U/s 24-A (2) of C.P. Act 1986 for condonation of delay before this Forum on 18.11.2015. The OPs have taken contention in respect of limitation that, the above complaint is barred by limitation and the complaints are filed beyond the period of the limitations. In order to prove this contention, the OPs have not furnished or substantiate with cogent evidence to hold that, the above said complaints are barred. Hence, the contentions of the OPs it is not acceptable and it has no merit. No dought, it is true that, the complainants have deposited the respective F.Ds. amount in the OPs society and several times requested the OPs to make good and paid the maturity amount. But, the OPs did not heed the request and not paid the maturity amount and merely giving assurance for settlement of the fixed deposit amounts. Therefore, in our consider view, the said contention alleged in written version are not acceptable and it has no merit at all, for that proposition, we would like to refer a decision of Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai reported decision in III 2005 CPJ 176 wherein the Hon’ble State Commission observe that, non-refund of maturity amount after the matured date, and further, the contention of OPs that, complaint barred by limitation not acceptable, the complainant has pardonable excuse, delay if any can legitimately be condoned.

 

          It is clear from the law laid down in the above referred decision, non-payment of F.D. amount always liable to be paid and the question of limitation arises either on the date of refusal to pay or from the date of demand. Therefore, in these cases, the complaints have demanded and filed the complaint on 18.11.2015, we are of the considered view that, the Complaints are filed within limitation. Hence, we answer the Point No.1 in the affirmative.

 

8.      Point No.2 :  We have gone through the pleadings of complainants, affidavit evidence of both parties and as well as document on record. It is admitted fact that, in C.C.No.557/2015, the grandmother of the complainant has kept fixed deposit to her granddaughter for her future life purpose and in C.C.No.558/2015 the complainant has kept fixed deposit to secure his future and made deposit to the OPs society.

 

On perusal of affidavit evidence of the complainants and the document produced by the complainants i.e. Original F.D receipts. The claim of the complainants in respect of above said F.Ds amount, though the complainants are depending on said FDs amount and interest accrued on FDs to solve the domestic financial problems and it is very difficult for lead the life in the absence of the respective FDs amount and interest.

 

Further, the case of the complainants are that, the complainants have claiming the future interest towards F.Ds till realization, for that proposition, the Complainants have not produced any cogent, material document to hold that, the complainants are entitle for future interest as alleged in the complaints and there is no any material document to show that, after the maturity of respective FDs amount as agreed rate of interest by the Ops and further the complainants have not established that, the Ops are liable to pay the future interest as alleged in the complaints.  

 

Therefore, in our consider view that, the complainants are not entitled future interest as alleged in the complaints and there is no any single document to hold that, the complainants have approached to the Ops and demanded for future interest and even they have not give application to renew the respective FDs as prevailing rate of interest on FDs. So, the contention of the complainants cannot be considered towards the rate of interest. However, the complainants are entitled @ 9 % p.a. from the date of complaint.     

 

It is case of the OP.No.2 that, the OP.No.2 put forth his written version in these cases and taken contention in written version that, the complainants are not entitled to the claims of more than matured amounts and they have not entitled to any future interests from the date of maturity onwards and further the main contention of the OP.No.2 is that, the complainants have not approached to the Sahakari/society and not furnished the details as required under law to claim the benefits and the complainants are not entitle for the interest as agreed. For that proposition, the OP.No.2 has only filed affidavit evidence and not produced any single cogent and material documents to hold that, the complainants have not approached to the OPs society as alleged in the written version. Therefore, the OP.No.2 has failed to establish as stated in the written version. Therefore, the contention of the OP.No.2 cannot be hold good and it is not acceptable and it has no merit at all.

 

 Looking to the facts and circumstances that, the alleged FD kept in Ops society, it is a mandatory duty of the OP Society that, whenever the said respective FDs amount are matured, on demand the Ops would have been refund the above said FDs amount to the complainants. But, in the instant cases, the Ops did not returned the above said FDs amount to the complainants, even after request and demand. Therefore, in our considered view that, on perusal of the contents of the affidavit evidence and document produced by the complainants, the OPs failed to refund the above said F.Ds amount as well as interest to the complainants. Therefore, the OPs have violated the terms and conditions of the contract as per F.D. receipts amount to the complainants, not refunding the same, it amounts to deficiency in service as contemplated under the provisions of C.P. Act – 1986.  

 

 

 

Moreover, it is a duty of the OPs that, the OPs ought to have paid or settled the respective F.Ds amount and further it is the right of the complainants that, the complainant is entitled F.D. maturity amount and interest. Therefore, the complainant has proved the case as alleged in the complaints and the Ops not refunding or settling F.D. maturity amount, despite demand and request made by the complainants to the Ops.

 

Looking to the above observation we hold that, in Compt.No.557/2015, complainant being minor by name Kumar Yash S/o Jeetendra Shitole Rep. by Grandmother. So, in our consider view that, in the above said case the Ops are directed to deposit the maturity amount and interest in the name of minor Kumar Yash S/o Jeetendra Shitole in any Nationalized Bank as per advise of the Grandmother till his attend the age of majority and in Compt.No.558/2015 the complainant has entitled to receive the F.D. maturity amount as per the F.D. receipts at agreed rate and the Ops are liable to pay interest @ 9 % p.a. from the date of complaint i.e. 18.11.2015 till realization and the complainants have established their case by producing F.D. receipts which are not disputed by the Ops. Therefore, in our considered opinion that, the Ops not only liable to pay the respective F.Ds amount, but they are also liable to pay compensation of Rs.2,000/- each complainant towards inconvenience and mental agony and Rs.1,000/- towards cost of litigation to the complainant, with this we answer to Point No.2 in partly Affirmative. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following;

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 

O R D E R

For the reason discuss above, the complaints filed by the complainants U/s 12 of the C.P. Act – 1986 in Complaint
Nos.557 and 558/2015 are here by partly allowed with costs.

 

 

The Ops jointly and severally are hereby directed to deposit the F.D. maturity amount and interest @ 9 % p.a. from the date of complaint i.e. 18.11.2015 till realization in the name of minor Kumar Yash S/o Jeetendra Shitole in any Nationalized Bank as per advise of the Grandmother till his attend the age of majority in Compt.No.557/2015.

 

The Ops jointly and severally are hereby directed to pay the F.D. maturity amount to the complainant as per the F.D. receipt in Compt.No.558/2015 and further the Ops are liable to pay interest @ 9 % p.a. from the date of complaint i.e. 18.11.2015 till realization.

 

 

The OP.No.1 & 2 jointly and severally are hereby directed to pay compensation of Rs.2,000/- each of the complainant towards mental agony and Rs.1,000/- towards cost of the litigation within 10 weeks from the date of this order, failing to which, the complainants are entitled to recover Addition interest @ 2 % p.a. from the date of this order.

 

         

 

Keep the Original Judgement in Complaint.No.557/2015 and copies thereof in other complaint for ready reference.

         

            (This order is dictated to the Stenographer, transcript edited, corrected and then pronounced in the open forum on this 30^th day of June, 2017).

 

 

Sri. A.G.Maldar,     President.

Smt.J.S. Kajagar,    Lady Member.