Karnataka

Belgaum

CC/311/2014

Suraj A Kotabagi - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Chairman Of Krantiveer Sangoli Rayanna Co Op Cr Scty - Opp.Party(s)

P S Gudage

29 Apr 2016

ORDER

(Order dictated by Shri. B.V.Gudli, President)

COMMON ORDER

            I. Though the complainant/s are same, their grievances, allegations and the facts pleaded are same except the details of the deposits by the respective complainant/s. In all the cases the O.Ps. society is same, represented by Chairman and Secretary. Hence for convenience all the cases are disposed of by the common order.

          II. Since there are 8 cases and Same complainant/s are there having same addresses and particulars of their deposits being different, for brevity and also for clarity and to avoid confusion, names of the parties of the particular cases only will be shown in the cause title and the details of the deposits will be shown separately in the annexure.

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

          2) Notice/s were issued against Opponents through paper publication dated:20/11/2014. Opponents No.1 and 2 appeared through counsel filed objection and affidavit etc.,       

          3) In support of the claim in the complaint/s, complainant/s have filed affidavit and original F.D.Rs. are produced by the complainant/s.

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

          5) 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?

          6) Our finding on the point is partly in affirmative, for the following reasons.

:: R E A S O N S ::

          7) The complainant/s filed their affidavit by way of evidence and they have stated in their respective affidavits that, for the future maintenance and to solve the financial problems in future, the complainant/s has invested his saved money in O.Ps. Society in fixed deposit Scheme wherein he/she can get better interest. The complainant/s have approached the opponents society and they have invested the saved money in the said fixed deposits in Op’s society detailed as under;

Sl. No.	Complaint No.	F.D.R No.	Date of deposit	Amount deposited	Date of maturity	matured Amount
1	2	3	4	5	6	7
1	310/2014	996	19/2/2005	30,000	19/8/2011	60,000
2	311/2014	1179	15/4/2006	15,000	15/1/2013	30,000
		1180	15/4/2006	15,000	15/1/2013	30,000
		1181	15/4/2006	15,000	15/1/2013	30,000
3	312/2014	1182	15/4/2006	15,000	15/1/2013	30,000
		1183	15/4/2006	15,000	15/1/2013	30,000
		1184	15/4/2006	15,000	15/1/2013	30,000
4	313/2014	1047	10/6/2005	10,000	10/12/2011	20,000
5	314/2014	955	7/12/2004	25,000	7/6/2011	50,000
		956	7/12/2004	25,000	7/6/2011	50,000
6	315/2014	1072	22/7/2005	17,000	22/1/2012	34,000
		1074	22/7/2005	6,000	22/1/2012	12,000
		1153	2/2/2006	21,000	2/11/2012	42,000
7	316/2014	954	7/12/2004	21,000	7/6/2011	42,000
		992	10/2/2005	10,000	10/8/2011	20,000
		1154	2/2/2006	20,000	2/11/2012	40,000

      

          8) In complaint No.317/2014 the complainant stated that on 28/12/2006 he had opened S.D. Account No.1572 and as on 29/6/2009 the balance amount is Rs.14,306/- and from 29/6/2009 the opponents parties not honoring my withdrawal slip saying that they have no cash in the society.

9) The complainant/s requested the opponents to return the matured amount, inspite of that opponents went on postponing the same by assigning one or other reasons. In-spite of that the opponents did not return the F.D.Rs. amount to the complainant/s. Hence opponents committed deficiency in service as contemplated under the provision of the consumer protection act 1986.

10) On the other hand the opponents filed objection and denying the all allegations of the complainant/s. The opponents submitted that the above mentioned society is not in existence and we are not at all the Chairman and Secretary of the Society. Further the opponents have state away denied that the complainant/s has approached the O.P. society and requested to release the F.D. amount. The O.P’s. further denied that on 7/11/2011 and after that in the month August, October 2011 the complainant personally approached the society to encash the fix deposits. Hence there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opponents, the question does not arise to file the complaint by the complainant/s against the opponents. Hence prays for dismissed the complaint.

11) In complaint No.311 and 312/2014, the complainant is represented by minor guardian, her Mother.

         12) On perusal evidence affidavit of the complainant/s, after maturity of F.D.R/s. the opponents have not paid F.D.R/s. amount. Inspite of the demands made to the O.Ps. have not paid the amount. Hence, the claim of the complainant/s that inspite of the demands made the amount remained unpaid, has to be believed and accepted.  The opponents submitted that the above mentioned society is not in existence and we are not at all the Chairman and Secretary of the Society. But the opponents not produced any single document related to the above contention. On perusal of the F.D.R/s. produced in all the cases the head note of the society is styled as Krantiveer Sangolli Rayanna Co-Operative Credit Society Nipani. As per the contends of the complainant/s the receipts issued by the society reveals credit society receipts and therefore the complainant had addressed same in the cause title. Even though it is the case of the opponents that the Co-Operative society has changed its name to Souhard Sahakari. But the opponents have not produced any documents to show that prior to changing the name of the society they have intimated the complainant/s in the regard. Hence even though the O.Ps. have changed the name of the society but it is not the case of opponents that the F.D.Rs. are not of the said society. Only changing the name of society for the sake of administration does not take away the liability on the part of the opponents for the claim made by the complainant. Therefore the contention does not hold any water. Hence, It is well settled legal position that non payment of the amount deposited, amounts to deficiency in service.

          13) Taking in to consideration of various aspects and the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court reported in (2011) SCCR 268 and of the Hon’ble Apex Commission reported in 2013 (2) CPR 574 as well as other subsequent decisions absolutely it is just and necessary to impose cost on daily basis if order remains uncomplied within the period fixed for compliance of the order, so as to have feeling and pinch.

          14) Accordingly, following order.

ORDER

          The complaints are partly allowed.

          The O.Ps. represented by the Chairman and Secretary are hereby directed and liable to pay to the complainant/s as ordered below;

Sl. No.	Complaint No.	F.D.R No.	Date of deposit	Amount deposited	Date of maturity	matured Amount
1	2	3	4	5	6	7
1	310/2014	996	19/2/2005	30,000	19/8/2011	60,000
2	311/2014	1179	15/4/2006	15,000	15/1/2013	30,000
		1180	15/4/2006	15,000	15/1/2013	30,000
		1181	15/4/2006	15,000	15/1/2013	30,000
3	312/2014	1182	15/4/2006	15,000	15/1/2013	30,000
		1183	15/4/2006	15,000	15/1/2013	30,000
		1184	15/4/2006	15,000	15/1/2013	30,000
4	313/2014	1047	10/6/2005	10,000	10/12/2011	20,000
5	314/2014	955	7/12/2004	25,000	7/6/2011	50,000
		956	7/12/2004	25,000	7/6/2011	50,000
6	315/2014	1072	22/7/2005	17,000	22/1/2012	34,000
		1074	22/7/2005	6,000	22/1/2012	12,000
		1153	2/2/2006	21,000	2/11/2012	42,000
7	316/2014	954	7/12/2004	21,000	7/6/2011	42,000
		992	10/2/2005	10,000	10/8/2011	20,000
		1154	2/2/2006	20,000	2/11/2012	40,000

The matured F.D.R/s. amount as mentioned in column No.7 with future interest at the rate of 8% P.A. from dates mentioned in column No.6 respectively till realization of the entire F.D.Rs. amount.

O.Ps. represented by the Chairman and Secretary as shown in the cause title jointly and severally are hereby directed to pay to the complainant a sum total of Rs.14,306/- lying in S.B. A/c. No.1572 with future interest at the rate of 4% P.A. from 30/6/2009 till realization of the entire amount.

          Further, the O.P. represented by the Chairman and Secretary are hereby directed and liable to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- in each complaint, to the complainant/s 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.

The original order shall be kept in complaint No.310/2014 and the true copy in other clubbed cases.

 (Order dictated, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on: 29^th day of April 2016)

Member                     Member               President.

gm*

Annexure

Witnesses examined on behalf of the complainant

1. CW 1 in all the complaint/s, the complainant/s have lead their evidence.

Documents produced by the complainant

1. Original F.D.Rs. produced as per the table shown in the order are exhibited C-1 to 3 respectively.
2. In complaint No.317/2014 the S.D. A/c. is marked as Ex. C-1.
3. Kannada Prabha Daily News paper is Ex. C.4.

Witnesses examined on behalf of the opponents

1. RW-1 and 2 Chairman and Secretary opponents

Documents produced by the opponents

Nil

Member                   Member                                  President.