Karnataka

Belgaum

CC/50/2015

Radhika R Kalpavruksha - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Chairman Of Krantiveer Urban Co Op Cr Scty Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

K R Shaha

22 Apr 2016

ORDER

(Order dictated by Smt. Sunita, Member)

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 both the cases the O.P. society is same, represented by Chairman, Vice Chairman and Manager. Hence for convenience all the cases are disposed of by the common order.

          II. Since there are 2 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) After service of notice Opponents No. 1 and 3 appeared through counsel and did not filed objection and affidavit. Inspite of service of notice O.P. No. 2 remains absent hence placed exparte.

          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 educational financial problems in future, the complainant/s has invested his saved money in O.P. Society in fixed deposit Scheme wherein he 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	50/2015	005	23/6/2008	8,000	23/6/2014	16,000
2	51/2015	004	23/6/2008	7,000	23/6/2014	14,000

          8) The complainant/s requested the opponents to return the matured amount, inspite of that opponent went on postponing the same by assigning one or other reasons. Thereafter the complainant/s got issued legal notice through his counsel on 7/1/2015 and said notice was duly served on the opponents. Inspite 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.

9) In complaint No.50/2015, the complainant is represented by minor guardian, her Father. After service of notice, Opponents No. 1 and 3 appeared through their counsel but did not filed objection and affidavit. Hence the objection of O.P. No. 1 and 3 is taken as not filed on 17/11/2015 and the affidavit of O.P.No. 1 and 3 is taken as not filed on 10/2/2016.

       10) 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. It is well settled legal position that non payment of the amount deposited, amounts to deficiency in service.

          11) 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.

          12) Accordingly, following order.

ORDER

          The complaints are partly allowed.

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

Sl. No.	Complaint No.	FDR/FDR. A/c. No.	Date of deposit	Amount deposited	Date of maturity	matured Amount
1	2	3	4	5	6	7
1	50/2015	005	23/6/2008	8,000	23/6/2014	16,000
2	51/2015	004	23/6/2008	7,000	23/6/2014	14,000

The matured F.D.R/s. amount as mentioned in column No.7 with future interest at the rate of 8% P.A. from 24/6/2014 respectively till realization of the entire F.D.Rs. amount.

          Further, the O.P. represented by the Chairman, Vice Chairman and Manager are hereby directed and liable to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- 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.50/2015 and the true copy in other clubbed cases.

 (Order dictated, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on: 22^nd day of April 2016)

Member                     Member               President.

gm*