COMMON ORDER

            I. Though the complainants are different, their grievances, allegations and the facts pleaded are same except the details of the deposits by the complainants.  In all the cases the opponents are same, as shown in the cause title. Hence for convenience all the cases are disposed of by the common order.

          II. Since there are 6 cases and same complainants are there having same addresses and particulars of his deposits being different, for brevity and also for clarity and to avoid confusion, names of the parties of the particular case only will be shown in the cause title and the details of the deposits will be shown separately in the table.

          1) The relevant facts of the cases are that the complainants have filed these complaints u/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 against the O.Ps. alleging deficiency in banking service of non refund of the matured fixed deposits.

          2) Upon service of notice the OP-1 and 2 appeared through their counsel and filed objections and affidavit. Inspite of service of notice O.P-3 & 4 remained absent. Hence placed exparte.

          3) In support of the claim in the complaints, complainants  have filed their affidavitS and original F.D.Rs. are produced by the complainants.   

          4) We have heard the arguments and perused the records.

          5) Now the point for our consideration is that whether the complainants have proved deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. 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 the perusal contents of the complaint/s and affidavit filed by the complainants, the complainants have deposited their amount in OP society as detailed below:

          8)       After maturity of said F.D.Rs. the complainants approached the office of the opponents and requested the opponent to return the matured F.D.R/s, inspite of that opponents went on postponing the same by assigning one or other reasons and not paid their amounts. Therefore the complainant/s issued legal notice to OPs on 10.06.2016. Inspite of issuance of legal notice to OPs failed to comply the same. Hence opponents committed deficiency in service as contemplated under the provision of the consumer protection act 1986.

9) The OPs in their objections contended that, complainants are the members of the society. The OP.2 is also being impleaded in the individual capacity and as also the OP.1 as Chairman, in the official capacity. Hence the complaints are not maintainable. It is admitted that the complainants have retained deposits in the OP society. The specimen signatures are a total mismatch that the one retained at the society. The complainants have failed to provide KYC norms to the OP society for deduction of TDS and also for identifying specimen signatures. The complainants be put to strict proof regarding OPs being essential and necessary parties as the complainants as any society under KCS Act is to be sued or is to sue through its CEO. Hence there is no deficiency of service on the part of OPs and prays for dismissal of the complaints.

10)    On perusal of objections the OPs have taken contention that the complainant/s have not complied KYC Norms. The OPs are at liberty to collect KYC documents at the time of release of the amount to the complainants. The another contention of OPs that, there is mismatch of signatures. To prove the said contention the OPs have not filed any application to refer the disputed signatures to handwriting expert.  On perusal of evidence affidavit of the complainants, the complainants produced original FD Receipts, they are in the name of complainants.  Inspite of service of notice O.P-3 & 4 remained absent. Hence placed exparte. It is well settled legal position that non payment of the amount deposited, amounts to deficiency in service.

11) 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. has been proved.

          12) Accordingly, following

ORDER

          The complaint/s are partly allowed.

          The Opponents. 1 to 4 as shown in the cause title are hereby jointly and severally directed and liable to pay to the complainants as order below;

The matured F.D.Rs. amount mentioned in column No.7 with future interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of maturity, as mentioned in column No.6 till realization of the entire amount.

          The Opponents.1 to 4 are jointly and severally liable to pay to the complainants a sum of Rs.3,000/- in each case towards cost of the proceedings.

         The order shall be complied within 30 days from the date of the order.

The original order shall be kept in complaint No.317/2016 and the true copy in other clubbed cases.

         (Order dictated, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on this 31 July 2017)