Karnataka

Belgaum

CC/481/2014

Prachi S Patil - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Chairman of Shree Vinayak Co-Op Cr Scty Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

S.R.Sakri.

23 Mar 2015

ORDER

(Order dictated by Smt. S.S.Kadrollimath, Member.)

COMMON ORDER

Though the complainants are different, their grievances, allegations and the facts pleaded are same except the details of the deposits by the respective complainants. In all the cases the O.P. 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 10 cases and same number complainants are there having different 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 case 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 complainants 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) O.P.No.1 appeared through advocate but did not filed version. O.P.No.2 appeared through advocate and has contended that in the complaint his name is not mentioned but due to misguide of the people of the O.P. society who are incharge of the same, this O.P. No.2 blindly appeared in this case even though his name is not appears in the complaint etc.,

3) In support of the claim in the complaint, complainant has filed his affidavit and certain documents including original F.D.R./s are produced. We have heard arguments of the both the counsels and perused the record.

4) Now the point for our consideration is that whether the complainant has proved any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. and he is entitled to the reliefs sought?

5) Finding on the point is partly in affirmative for the following reasons.

:: R E A S O N S ::

          6) From the evidence on record it has been proved that The complainant/s have deposited the amount in O.P. society in F.D.R/s. in the respective accounts and for the respective some mentioned in the F.D.R/s. The maturity value, the amount deposited and the dates are shown in the annexure/table below;

Sl. No.	Complaint No.	FDR/FDR. A/c. No.	Date of deposit	Amount deposited	Date of maturity	matured Amount
1	2	3	3	4	5	6
1	469/14	1215	16/12/2005	6,000	16/3/2012	12,000
2	470/14	1279	15/12/2006	8,000	15/3/2013	16,000
		1282	19/1/2007	5,000	19/4/2013	10,000
		1287	19/2/2007	4,000	17/5/2013	8,000
3	471/14	1291	6/3/2007	6,000	1/6/2013	12,000
		1302	18/6/2007	6,000	18/9/20013	12,000
4	472/14	999	5/3/2004	2,000	5/3/2009	4,000
		1006	2/4/2004	5,000	2/4/2009	10,000
		4328	9/1/2006	5,000	9/4/2009	7,112
		341	12/4/2008	6,000	12/4/2009	6,600
		1027	10/5/2004	2,000	10/5/2009	4,000
		4367	15/2/2006	5,000	15/5/2009	7,112
		4519	17/8/2005	2,000	17/11/2008	2,845
		228	27/8/2008	2,000	27/11/2008	2,050
5	475/14	3941/1493	2/02/2005	2,000	2/5/2008	2,845
		1038	2/6/2004	2,500	2/6/2009	5,000
		4394	27/3/2006	5,000	27/6/2009	7,113
		4407	6/4/2006	2,000	6/7/2009	2,845
		1062	6/7/2004	4,000	6/7/2009	8,000
		4507	8/8/2006	5,000	8/11/2009	7,112
6	480/14	1218	16/12/2005	6,000	16/3/2012	12,000
		4500	26/7/2006	4,000	26/10/2009	5,690
		4586	21/10/2006	5,000	20/01/2010	7,113
7	481/14	1219	16/12/2005	6,000	16/3/2012	12,000
		4368	20/2/2006	6,000	20/5/2009	8,535
		1244	6/4/2006	4,000	6/7/2012	8,000
		4501	26/7/2006	4,000	26/10/2009	5,690
		4585	21/10/2006	5,000	21/01/2010	7,113
8	482/14	1220	16/12/2005	2,000	16/3/2012	4,305
		4305	16/12/2005	5,000	16/3/2009	7,112
		4414	11/4/2006	10,000	11/7/2009	14,225
		4415	11/4/2006	10,000	11/7/2009	14,225
9	483/14	1059	2/7/2004	2,000	2/7/2009	4,000
		1217	16/12/2005	6,000	16/3/2012	12,000
10	484/14	4289	3/12/2005	2,000	3/3/2009	2,845
		1216	16/12/2005	6,000	16/3/2012	12,000

 

7) Grievance of the complainant/s is that after maturity inspite of the repeated requests the maturity value was not paid and hence there is deficiency in service. The O.P.2 appeared through advocate and contended that in the complaint his name is not mentioned but due to misguide of the people of the O.P. society who are incharge of the same, this O.P. No.2 blindly appeared in this case even though his name is not appears in the complaint etc., further he contended that notice of this case served when this O.P. appeared in some other Execution petition of the same O.P. society and this O.P. is noway concerned with the claim of the complainant and he is not at all concerned with the alleged F.D.R/s. claims to be deposited by the complainant in the O.P. society. When this O.P. is noway concerned to the O.P. society then why he appeared in Execution Petition as a Secretary and settled the matters. In the present case the O.P.No.2 was present before the forum and the forum asked him if he wants to appeared can file vakalat or appear Inperson, because he submitted that he is not the Secretary of the society. The O.P. In person voluntarily received the notice before the forum, but the contention taken at page No.2 of the objection that due to misguide of the other office bearers of the society appeared in this case cannot be believed and accepted. Further he has not produced a single document to show that he is not concerned with the O.P. society. These facts alleged in the complaint are stated by the complainant in the affidavit. Hence, deficiency in service is proved.

          8) 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.

          9) Accordingly, following order.

ORDER

          The complaints are partly allowed.

          The O.Ps. represented by the Chairman and Secretary are jointly and severally are hereby directed 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	3	4	5	6
1	469/14	1215	16/12/2005	6,000	16/3/2012	12,000
2	470/14	1279	15/12/2006	8,000	15/3/2013	16,000
		1282	19/1/2007	5,000	19/4/2013	10,000
		1287	19/2/2007	4,000	17/5/2013	8,000
3	471/14	1291	6/3/2007	6,000	1/6/2013	12,000
		1302	18/6/2007	6,000	18/9/20013	12,000
4	472/14	999	5/3/2004	2,000	5/3/2009	4,000
		1006	2/4/2004	5,000	2/4/2009	10,000
		4328	9/1/2006	5,000	9/4/2009	7,112
		341	12/4/2008	6,000	12/4/2009	6,600
		1027	10/5/2004	2,000	10/5/2009	4,000
		4367	15/2/2006	5,000	15/5/2009	7,112
		4519	17/8/2005	2,000	17/11/2008	2,845
		228	27/8/2008	2,000	27/11/2008	2,050
5	475/14	3941/1493	2/02/2005	2,000	2/5/2008	2,845
		1038	2/6/2004	2,500	2/6/2009	5,000
		4394	27/3/2006	5,000	27/6/2009	7,113
		4407	6/4/2006	2,000	6/7/2009	2,845
		1062	6/7/2004	4,000	6/7/2009	8,000
		4507	8/8/2006	5,000	8/11/2009	7,112
6	480/14	1218	16/12/2005	6,000	16/3/2012	12,000
		4500	26/7/2006	4,000	26/10/2009	5,690
		4586	21/10/2006	5,000	20/01/2010	7,113
7	481/14	1219	16/12/2005	6,000	16/3/2012	12,000
		4368	20/2/2006	6,000	20/5/2009	8,535
		1244	6/4/2006	4,000	6/7/2012	8,000
		4501	26/7/2006	4,000	26/10/2009	5,690
		4585	21/10/2006	5,000	21/01/2010	7,113
8	482/14	1220	16/12/2005	2,000	16/3/2012	4,305
		4305	16/12/2005	5,000	16/3/2009	7,112
		4414	11/4/2006	10,000	11/7/2009	14,225
		4415	11/4/2006	10,000	11/7/2009	14,225
9	483/14	1059	2/7/2004	2,000	2/7/2009	4,000
		1217	16/12/2005	6,000	16/3/2012	12,000
10	484/14	4289	3/12/2005	2,000	3/3/2009	2,845
		1216	16/12/2005	6,000	16/3/2012	12,000

 

          The O.Ps. represented by the Chairman and Secretary are jointly and severally are hereby directed to pay the F.D.R/s. amount matured to the complainant/s as mentioned in column No.6 with interest at the rate of 8% from the dates mentioned at column No.5 as shown in the table above respectively.

          Further, the O.Ps. represented by the Chairman and Secretary are jointly and severally are hereby directed 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.472/2014 and the true copy in other clubbed cases.

 (Order dictated, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on: 23rd day of March 2015)

          Member                    Member                    President.

gm*