Karnataka

Belgaum

CC/404/2015

Nousad Y Shaikh - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Chairman Of Pragati Co-OpCr Scty Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

S R Patil

07 Dec 2016

ORDER

                

ADDITIONAL  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BELAGAVI

C.C.No.401/2015 to 405/2015

 

                     Date of filing: 14/08/2015

 

                                                                  Date of disposal:07/12/2016

 

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.401/2015

 

 

COMPLAINANT   -

Shri.Tanveer Latifa Gavandi, Age: 17 Years, Occ: Student, Rep.by : Her Natural Mother Smt.Rihana Latifa Gavandi, C/o: Najeerahmad Mammulal Shaikh, R/o: Gadagi Galli, Sankeshwar, Tq: Hukkeri.                     (Rep. by Sri. S.R. Patil, Adv.)

 

 

Complaint No.402/2015

 

 

COMPLAINANT   -

Kum. Mayjabin Latifa Gavandi, Age: 15 Years, Occ: Student, Rep.by : Her MG Natural Mother Smt.Rihana Latifa Gavandi, C/o: Najeerahmad Mammulal Shaikh, R/o: Gadagi Galli, Sankeshwar, Tq: Hukkeri.                     (Rep. by Sri. S.R. Patil, Adv.)

 

 

Complaint No.403/2015

 

COMPLAINANT   -

Smt.Jarina Razaq Nulakar, Age: 54 Years, Occ: House Wife, C/o: Najeerahmad Mammulal Shaikh, R/o: Gadagi Galli, Sankeshwar, Tq: Hukkeri.                     (Rep. by Sri. S.R. Patil, Adv.)

 

 

Complaint No.404/2015

 

COMPLAINANT   -

Smt.Nousad Yashin Shaikh, Age: 58 Years, Occ: House Wife, C/o: Najeerahmad Mammulal Shaikh, R/o: Gadagi Galli, Sankeshwar, Tq: Hukkeri.                     (Rep. by Sri. S.R. Patil, Adv.)

 

 

Complaint No.405/2015

 

 

COMPLAINANT   -

Smt.Rihana Latifa Gavandi, Age: 50 Years, Occ: House Wife, C/o: Najeerahmad Mammulal Shaikh, R/o: Gadagi Galli, Sankeshwar, Tq: Hukkeri.                     (Rep. by Sri. S.R. Patil, Adv.)

 

- V/S -

 

OPPOSITE PARTIES  -

1.         2.

The Chairman, Pragati Co-Op. Credit  Society Ltd., Sankeshwar, Tq: Hukkeri, Dist.Belgaum.   The Secretary, Pragati Co-Op. Credit  Society Ltd., Sankeshwar, Tq: Hukkeri, Dist.Belgaum.                      (Rep. by Sri. D.S. Pachandi, Adv.                                           for Op.No.1 & 2)

 

By  Sri.A.G. Maldar, President.

 

COMMON JUDGEMENT

 

 

1.      All these complaints were filed by the complainant 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  matured amounts as per the respective F.D. receipts with interest from the date of maturity and compensation alongwith cost and such other reliefs deemed fit under the circumstances of the 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 Op.No.1 & 2 represents Society which is Registered under Reg.No.AR9/RSR/UPG-24796/98-99 dtd:20.05.1998, the Provisions of Karnataka Co-Op. Act and affiliated to the Reserve  Bank of India and follows the Rules and Regulations and also the directions issued by the Reserve Bank of India. The Op.No.1 & 2 of the said society has been carrying the business of accepting money deposits and advancing loans to the members.

The Complainants have deposited mony as FD in Ops Bank on dated 29/3/2006,  as shown below  and to be matured on 26.09.2012 for a period of 78 months on at accrued interest (double amount), the details of depositing the amount, the quantum of matured amount are as shown below:

 

Sl No	Complaint Nos.	F.D. Receipt Nos.	Deposit Amount in Rs.	Date of Deposit	Date of maturity	Quantum of maturity amount
1.	401/2015	00525	30,000/-	29.03.2006	26.09.2012	60,000/-
2.	402/2015	00526	30,000/-	29.03.2006	26.09.2012	60,000/-
3.	403/2015	00519	30,000/-	29.03.2006	26.09.2012	60,000/-
4.	404/2015	00520	30,000/-	29.03.2006	26.09.2012	60,000/-
5.	405/2015	00524	30,000/-	29.03.2006	26.09.2012	60,000/-

 

The respective Complainants, after the date of maturity the Complainants were approached the Ops  and requesting to pay the quantum of matured FD amount several times, but for one or the other reasons they were failed to pay the same. Finally, the Complainants got issued legal notice on dated: 18.05.2015 calling upon to make payment of the respective matured F.D amount. Despites service of legal notice to the Opponents failed to pay the respective matured F D amounts. The conduct of Opponents are not paying the matured amount, it amounts to deficiency  of service on the part of the Opponents. Hence, these Complaints.

 

 

3.      The Complainants have also filed I.A. u/s 24 (A) of C.P. Act praying to condone the delay of 02 Years 10 months in filing their respective Complaints, for the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavits. The respective Complainants in their affidavit filed in support of their I.A.s, reiterating the facts stated in the Complaints contended that after maturity date, the Opponents failed to pay the matured amount despites request and service of legal notice. Further, it is stated that, the cousel of action the limitation starts to run from the date of service of legal notice, not from the date of maturity, if that is so, there is no delay at all. Even otherwise, the delay of 02 Years 10 months from the date of maturity was unintentional and the same deserves to be condoned.

 

5.      After issue of notice to the Opponents. The Op.No.2, has appeared through his Counsel and resisted the claim of the complainant by filing his written version and Op.No.1 adopt the same by filing the memo. Wherein the Ops society have totally denied the allegations made by the complainant against them. The para No.2 of the complaint is partly false and partly true. The complainants have  kept in F.D. amount in the Op society for a period of 78 months and the same are matured on 26.09.2012.

 

          It is contended that, on 18.05.2015 the complainants have got issued legal notice calling upon the Ops to make payment of the maturity F D amount within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice. But, the Ops have not received any legal notice from the complainants and the complainants are making false allegations against the Ops without being any reason.

 

          It is further contended that, the cause of action shown in the complaints are not proper and correct, the complainants have never visited to the Op society to claim the FD maturity amounts. Hence, there is no any cause of action to file this complaint. On these grounds also the present complaints may kindly be dismissed and also the complaints are more than 3 years delay in filing the complaints and the same is not been explained properly and separate application alongwith affidavit of the complainants are not been filed as per the provisions of C.P. Act. Hence, the complainants are not entitled to get any relief by this Hon’ble Forum. It is further Ops contended that, as per the rules and regulations under the souharada Act that, the election process after completion of 5 years i.e. on 31.03.2015, there is no any election taken place and under the Karnataka Souharda Act 1997, if the election process is not been taken place, Hence the present complaint hit by the doctrine of  missjoinder of necessary parties. Therefore, for the reasons stated in the complaints, the complainants are not entitled to relief sought in prayer clause. The Hon’ble Forum may kindly be dismissing the complaint with compensatory costs.

 

4.      The Complainants have filed their respective affidavits in support of their claim and produced the copy of legal notice, F.D. Receipts, Postal Cover, Postal Acknowledgements and Postal Receipts. On the other hand, the opponents have not produced any affidavits or documents. The Adv. for complainants have filed their written arguments. Both advocate absent, hence  the arguments of both side  have taken as heard.

After perusing the pleadings, documents and objections.

 

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

 

 

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

 

2. Whether the complainants have prove that there is deficiency in service on the part of the OPs for not settling the payment of F.D. amount?

 

3.  What order?

 

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

 

 

1.  Point No.1 & 2 in the Affirmative.
2.  As per final Order.

 

 

R E A S O N S :-

 

6.      Point No.1:  The case of the complainants are that, all these complainants deposited their amount in F.D. Scheme on 29.03.2006 to 26.12.2012 in the terms of 78 months as shown in the respective F.D. receipts produced before the forum in Ops society. Of course, the Complainants not specifically mentioned the date of approaching the Opponents demanding to pay the matured amount. Nevertheless, it is not in dispute that, the Complainants issued legal notice on dated; 18.05.2015 calling upon them to make payment towards the matured F.D amount. It is also admitted that, the said legal notice served to the Opponents.

The Complaints have filed I.A. U/s 24-A (2) of C.P. Act 1986 for condonation of delay before this Forum on 14.08.2015. The OPs have taken contention that, the complaints are time barred and it is not within limitation. In order to prove this contention OPs have not furnish or substantiate with cogent evidence to hold that, the 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, complaints have deposited in the OPs society and several times requested the OPs to make good and paid the maturity amount and even the complainant has issued legal notice to the OPs in respect of same but, the complainants did not heed the request and not paid the maturity amount. Looking, to the facts and circumstances to the case, we would like to refer a decision of Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ahamadabad reported in III 2004 CPJ 741, wherein the Hon’ble State Commission observe that, complainant demanded his amounts from the company/OP, limitation starts from the date of demand or refusal of payment, the said above decision is applicable to these complaints for the reason that, in the instant complaints, the complainant have issued legal notice, for shake of convenience marked as Ex.P-1 on dtd:18.05.2015 and further we would like to refer another 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, complaints barred by limitation not acceptable, the complainant has pardonable excuse, delay if any can legitimately be condoned. Hence, with above observation, we are of the consider view that, delay has been condoned for adjudicate the matter though the complainants have legitimate right over the deposited F.D. amount. If the date of service is taken into consideration in all these Complaints were filed within limitation. The delay of 02 Year 10 months has been calculated from the date of maturity which is incorrect. Actually, the limitation starts to run from the date of denial or from the date of demand, if this principle is applied absolutely there is no delay and it is within limitation in filing all these Complaints. The limitation cannot be computed from the date of maturity. It is clear from the law laid down in the above referred decisions, 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, all these Complaints having filed on 14.08.2015 in pursuance of service of legal notices, we are of the considered view that, the Complaints are filed within limitation. Hence, we answer the Point No.1 in the affirmative.

 

7.      Point No.2 : We have gone through the pleadings, evidence of complainants and as well as documents on records. It is admitted fact that, the complainants are members of the Ops society. The Ops society established with an object to help the members of the said society. The Ops society has issued F.D. receipts to the complainants, the said documents of Original F.D. receipts were marked for shake of convenience as Ex.P-2. Further, the case of the complainants are that, several times approached the OPs and requested to paid the F.D. amounts but, the Opponents society failed to pay the matured F.D. amounts with interest on maturity. Inspite of receipt of notice, the opponents have not bothered to pay back the complainants F.D. matured amounts, these acts of the Ops it amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the Ops.

 

 

It is a duty of the OPs that, after the maturity of F.D. amount a mandatory duty on the part of OPs to disburse or settle the F.D. amount by giving the make good payment which were fixed by the complainants in Ops society, but the OPs failed to pay F.D. maturity amount and one or the other reason dragging and alleging untenable contention is amounts to deficiency of service on the part of OPs.  We would like to refer a decision of Hon’ble Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai in 2010 (1) CPR 62. Wherein the Hon’ble State Commission observe that, non-refund of maturity amount of F.D. amount, amounts to deficiency of service attracting Sec.2(1) (g) of C.P. Act and further observe that, Consumer Forum have jurisdiction to entertain complaint against the Co-Operative Societies.  In the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court and National Commission regarding maintainability of complaint, it is aptly applicable to these cases. 

 

Therefore, the complainants are entitled to receive their respective maturity amount as per the F.D. receipts with interest
 @ 6 % p.a. from the date of maturity till realization.  Hence, due to non-payment of F.D. matured amount by the OPs is caused mental agony and harassment to the complainants. In our considered view that, it is just and proper to award a compensation of Rs.3,000/- each of the complainant for inconvenience and mental agony. Added to this we also award litigation expenses of Rs.1,000/- to the each of the complainant. Hence, we answer to Point No.2 in partly Affirmative.

 

 

8.      Point No: 3:- With these findings on Point No.1 & 2, we proceed to pass the following;

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   

O R D E R

 

For the reason discuss above, the complaint filed by the complainants U/s 12 of the C.P. Act – 1986 in Complaint Nos.401/2015, 402/2015, 403/2015, 404/2015 and 405/2015 are here by partly allowed with costs.

 

 

The Opponent No.1 & 2 is hereby directed to pay the respective maturity amount as per the F.D. receipts with interest
 @ 6 % p.a. from the date of maturity till realization.  

 

 

The Opponent No.1 & 2 also hereby directed to pay compensation of Rs.3,000/- and Rs.1,000/- towards cost of each complainant within 8 weeks from the date of this order, failing which liable to pay Addition interest @ 2 %  from the date of complaints till final realization.

 

Keep the Original Judgement in Complaint.No.401/2015 and copies thereof in other complaints for ready reference.

 

 

            (This order is dictated to the Stenographer, transcript edited, corrected and then pronounced in the open forum on this  07^th day of December, 2016).

 

 

Sri. A.G.Maldar,     President.

Smt.J.S. Kajagar,    Lady Member.