IN THE DIST.CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM BELAGAVI. AT: BELAGAVI
Dated this 4th day of August 2016
Complaint No.472/2013
Present: 1) Shri. B.V. Gudli, President
2) Shri. V.S. Gotakhindi, Member
Complainant: Somavanshi Aryakshatriya Housabai Mahila Mandal, R/by its President of The Shri Housabai Yuva Mahila Mandal, Nippani (Registered Society) Sou.Nanda Satej Ambale, Age: 54 years, Occ: Household, R/o.1062, Nehru Chowk, Nippani, Tq.Chikodi.
(By Sri. K.R.Shah, Advocate)
V/s.
Opponents:1) The Chairman,
Bharati Mahila Credit Souhard Sahakari Ltd.,
Nippani, At/Po: Nippani, Old PB Road, Near CMC, Nippani, Tq. Chikodi, Dist.Belgaum.
2) The Secretary,
Bharati Mahila Credit Souhard Sahakari Ltd.,
Nippani, At/Po: Nippani, Old PB Road, Near CMC, Nippani, Tq. Chikodi, Dist.Belgaum.
(O.P.1 dead and O.P. 2 by Sri. S.R. Sakari, Advocate)
(Order dictated by Sri.B.V.Gudli, President)
ORDER
U/s. 12 of the C.P. Act, the complainant has filed the complaint against the O.Ps. alleging deficiency in service of non payment of the amount of the matured F.D.Rs.
2) After service of notice O.P.2 appeared through counsel. OP-1 reported dead.
3) The 2nd O.P. filed the version denied deficiency in service contending that the complainants allegations are away from the truth and without merits and liable to dismiss the complaint etc.
4) The complainant and 2nd O.P. have filed their affidavits and for the complainant certain documents are produced.
5) We have heard the arguments of both learned counsel for complainant and O.P. and have perused the records.
6) Now the point for our consideration is that whether the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps and entitled to the reliefs sought?
7) Our finding on the point is partly in affirmative, for the following reasons.
:: R E A S O N S ::
8) The complainant further alleges that Late. Smt.Hausabai Amble was expired in the year 1987 and her family members decided to establish one registered Trust / Society in her name for social purpose named as Hausabai Yuva Mahila Mandal, Nippani, registered under Karnataka Societies Registration Act on 29.07.2004 bearing registration No.230/04-05. The complainant further alleges that Hausabai is the mother in law of the said present President and belonging to Somavamshi Aryak Kshatriya community and for the welfare of the community it was decided by the society to keep some fixed deposits to get better interest and to utilize the amount for social purpose. And as the complainant is resident of Nippani city came in contact with the OP society and on their explanation about the scheme deposited the amount in FD & the OP promised to release the amount at the nick of time. The complainant further alleges that he approached the society after the maturity for the release of the amount, but OP postponed the same and on 18.02.2013 the complainant issued legal notice to release the amount but the OPs failed to make the payment and caused deficiency of service and prayed to allow the complaint.
9) On the other hand the OP-2 filed the objections contending that allegations made in the complaint are far away from truth and the complaint is moduled to bring within the limitation and jurisdiction of the forum, there are no merits in the case and the OP is not aware of as to why the name of the society is styled as Shree Hausabai Yuva Mahila Mandal, Nippani and unless byelaws of the society are made available and society if it is registered under KSR Act every year same is to be renewed, if the society is not registered it will have to be liquidated under the provisions of Sec.27 of the Act. The OP further contends that there is no resolution provided in respect of authorization and the governing body of alleged Mandal and whether society is continued till date and the OP does not know that Smt. Hausabai belongs to Somavamshi community. The OP contends that there was deposit of Rs.5,000/- as on 14.11.2002 itself suggest that there was no existence of registered society as on the date as the complainant has admitted in para.1 that society is registered on 29.07.2004. The complainant shall be put to strict proof to show that the agreed rate of interest was 13% P.A. and the deposit of Rs.7,000/- are in the name of Somavamshi Aryak Kshatriya, Hausabai Mahila Mandal, Nippani and not in the name of Shree Hausabai Yuva Mahila Mandal, Nippani and the complainant has not proved any details regarding the status of the said deposit and or the balance sheet of the deposits. The OP further contends that the complainant has not approached the society and the Sahakari has already instructed the society to give details of the President of Mahila and produce the documents and insisted for release of amount in favour of Smt.Nanda Amble and filed this dispute and there is no deficiency in service and there is no jurisdiction and the complainant is not entitled for interest against the deposit on the date of maturity at the agreed rate as there is no agreement for payment of interest.
10) The oral and the documentary evidence on record establish that under F.D.R. No. 4646 and 12257 were kept by the complainant, a sum of Rs.5,000/- and Rs.7,000/- in fixed deposit with the O.P. society on 14/11/2002 and 03/07/2006 respectively in the name of the complainant for a period of 5 years 6 months and 30 days and above and the maturity value is Rs.10,000/- in respect of FDR No.4646 and maturity date was 14/05/2008 and in respect of FDR No.12257. The agreed interest is 8.5% P.A.
11) We have perused the documents produced by the complainant and also have gone through the allegations and contents. The OPs being the Sahakari who has issued the FD Certificates which are produced by the complainant before the forum, themselves are denying the said FDRs for the want of knowledge. The OPs have also contended that there is no knowledge of registration of Mandal and as to why the name of Mandal was named as Shree Hausabai Yuva Mahila Mandal, Nippani. But it is pertinent to note that here the allegation of the complainant is that the OP is at deficiency in service for non payment of FDR amount kept by the complainant. The OP is at liberty to challenge the name of the Mandal and its registration before the proper authority. Moreover the denial of the FDRs and its knowledge, the complainant has submitted the FDR receipts issued by the OPs themselves. This itself goes to show that knowing the FDRs are issued by the OPs have failed to pay the amount under the Fixed Deposits. The another contention of the OP is that the complainant is not entitled for the FDR amount for want of knowledge that the said particular person is the President of the Mandal. It is to be noted that the OP is also one of the society registered under the KST Act and the representative of the society is well aware of the Act and it can very well avail the information from the competent authority as to who is running the complainant’s Mandal in the official capacity. The another contention of the OP is that the complainant is not entitled for the interest as agreed after maturity. After perusal of the FDRs we noticed that the FDR bearing No.4646 is matured in the year 2008 and in regard to FDR no.12257 it was retained for 30 days and above for interest @8.5%. The complainant has not produced any document to show that after maturity they are entitled for the same interest as agreed by the OPs i.e. 13% and 8.5% respectively. Therefore we are of the opinion that till the date of maturity the complainant is entitled for agreed rate and thereafter @ as ordered below. The complainant has produced the registration certificate and also copy of legal notice and on 12.05.2016 the complainant has produced one receipt of Rs.5,000/- which is paid by the OP society on 12.02.2016. The FD receipts are marked and exhibited C1 and 2 and the receipt dt.08.01.2016 is exhibited as C.
11) Taking in to consideration of various aspects and the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in (2011) SCCR 268 as well as Hon’ble Apex Commission in a ruling reported in 2013 (2) CPR 574 as well as the purpose and object of the Act, absolutely it is just and necessary to impose heavy cost on daily basis if order remains uncomplied within period fixed for compliance of the order, so as to have feeling and pinch.
12) Taking into consideration of the facts and allegations made and after perusing the documents we pass the following
13) Accordingly, following order.
O R D E R
The complaint is partly allowed.
The O.Ps. represented by the Chairman and Secretary as mentioned in the cause title are hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant in respect of F.D.R. No.4646, with future interest at the rate of 8% P.A. from 15/5/2008 and Rs.7,000/- in respect of FDR No.12257 @ 8.5% interest P.A. from 03/07/2006 upto 03/08/2006 and with future interest @6% P.A. from 04/08/2006 till realization of the entire amount.
So also the O.Ps. represented by the Chairman and Secretary are hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- to the complainant towards costs of the proceedings.
The order shall be complied within 30 days from the date of the order.
If the order is not complied within stipulated period, O.Ps. are hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.50/- per day to the complainant from the date of disobedience of order, till the order is complied.
(Order dictated, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on: 4th day of August 2016)
Member Member President.
msr*
