IN THE DIST.CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM BELAGAVI.
Dated this 26th day of August 2016
Complaint Nos. 407 and 408/2015
Present: 1) Shri. B.V.Gudli President
2) Sri. V.S. Gotakhindi, Member.
3) Smt.Sunita, Member
-***-
Complainants:
Kumari Shivani D/o. Shankarlal Chabaria,
Age: 12 yrs, Occ: Student,
Since minor through its M/G. natural father
Shri. Shankarlal @ Shankar S/o. Holaram Chabaria,
Age: 42 years, Occu: Business,
R/o. Kolhapur.
C.C. No.407/2014
Kumar Santosh S/o. Shankarlal Chabaria,
Age: 16 yrs, Occ: Student,
Since minor through its M/G. natural father
Shri. Shankarlal @ Shankar S/o. Holaram Chabaria,
Age: 42years, Occu: Business,
R/o. Kolhapur.
C.C. No.408/2014
(By Sri. K.R. Shaha, Advocate).
V/s.
Opponents: Shree Vinayak Co-Op. Cr. Society Ltd., Belagavi,
By its Chairman, Directors and Manager.
1) The Chairman,
Shree Vinayak Co-Op. Cr. Society Ltd., Belagavi,
AT/PO: Belagavi Samachar Bhavan,
2nd Floor, Nargundkar Bhave Chowk,
Belagavi.
(By Sri.B.R.Kapahi, Advocate)
2) The Manager,
Shree Vinayak Co-Op. Cr. Society Ltd., Belagavi,
AT/PO: Belagavi Samachar Bhavan,
2nd Floor, Nargundkar Bhave Chowk,
Belagavi.
3) The Director,
Shri. Amrut Kedari Jadhav of
Shree Vinayak Co-Op. Cr. Society Ltd., Belagavi,
Chavat Galli, Belagavi.
4) The Director,
Shri. Rajendra B. Kanguri of
Shree Vinayak Co-Op. Cr. Society Ltd., Belagavi,
Belagavi Samachar Bhavan, 2nd Floor, Nargundkar Bhave Chowk, Belagavi.
5) The Director,
Shri. Anant B. Shintre, Advocate, of
Shree Vinayak Co-Op. Cr. Society Ltd., Belagavi,
R/o. Vijayanagar, Hindalga, Belagavi.
6) The Director,
Shri. Suresh Virupaxi Shetty of
Shree Vinayak Co-Op. Cr. Society Ltd., Belagavi,
Belagavi Samachar Bhavan, 2nd Floor, Nargundkar Bhave Chowk, Belagavi.
7) The Director,
Shri. Raju Kisanchand Godwani, Advocate of
Shree Vinayak Co-Op. Cr. Society Ltd., Belagavi,
R/o. Sindhi colony, Hindalga,
Belagavi.
8) The Director,
Shri. Gajanan Maruti Shahapurkar of
Shree Vinayak Co-Op. Cr. Society Ltd., Belagavi,
R/o. Azad Galli, Belagavi.
9) The Director,
Shri. Anil Narayan Sambrekar, Advocate of
Shree Vinayak Co-Op. Cr. Society Ltd., Belagavi,
R/o. Chavat Galli, Belagavi.
10) The Director,
Smt. Vanita Satish Sambrekar, of
Shree Vinayak Co-Op. Cr. Society Ltd., Belagavi,
R/o. Chavat Galli, Belagavi.
(O.Ps-2 to 10 are placed exparte)
(Order dictated by Sri.B.V.Gudli, President.)
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, Manager and Directors. Hence for convenience all the cases are disposed of by the common order.
II. Since there are 2 cases and same number complainants 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 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) After service of the notice, O.P.No.1 appeared through advocate but did not filed objection and affidavit. Inspite of service of notice OP.5, 7 and 9 remained absent hence they have placed as exparte. The notice issued to OP.2 to 4, 6, 8 and 10 returned with endorsement not claimed. Hence the Advocate for complainant filed an application U/o.5 Rule.20 of CPC. The application is allowed and as per the application notice was issued to OP.2 to 4, 6, 8 and 10 through paper publication. Notice is duly published in “Nadoj daily newspaper”. Inspite of that the OP.2 to 4, 6, 8 and 10 remains absent hence they have placed exparte.
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 complainant advocate 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) For the future maintenance and to solve the educational financial problem in future the complainant’s father has invested his saved money in some F.D.Scheme wherein he can get better interest in OP society as 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 | 407/2015 | 1840 | 30/01/2006 | 32,000 | 31/04/2012 | 64,000 |
2 | 408/2015 | 1441 | 10/02/2005 | 6,000 | 10/05/2011 | 12,000 |
7) The complainant further alleged that, after maturity the complainant’s father had personally approached the OP society and requested immediate release of the matured amount but the OPs are postponing the same on one or other pretexts. Hence the complainant’s father had issued a notice to the OP society calling upon them to release the matured amount. To the said notice the OPs have given the reply that due to shortage of funds they are unable to release the FDR amount and also promised that they will release the FDR amount after passing some dates. The complainant further alleged that, after waiting for some days as, there is no response from the OPs society.
8) Lastly fed up with the opponents behavior the complainants father had issued legal notice through his advocate on 27/05/2015 by RPAD calling upon the opponents for the immediate release of F.D.R. amount with interest, but they failed to make payment as mentioned above within the stipulated period till today. Thus opponents caused deficiency of service on the part of the opponents and the complainant is constrained to file these complaints against these opponents before this Hon’ble Forum.
9) On perusal documents F.D.Rs. produced by the complainants. The F.D.Rs are standing in the name of the minor complainants. On perusal evidence affidavit of the complainants, after maturity of F.D.Rs. the opponents have not paid F.D.Rs. amount. Hence, the claim of the complainants that inspite of the demands made the amount remained unpaid, has to be believed and accepted. In these complaints the complainants are minors hence, the minor guardian is their natural father Sri.Shankarlal @ Shankar Holaram Chabaria. After service of the notice, O.P.No.1 appeared through advocate but did not filed objection and affidavit. Inspite of service of notice OP.5, 7 and 9 remained absent hence they have placed as exparte. The notice issued to OP.2 to 4, 6, 8 and 10 returned with endorsement not claimed. Hence the Advocate for complainant filed an application U/o.5 Rule.20 of CPC. The application is allowed and as per the application notice was issued to OP.2 to 4, 6, 8 and 10 through paper publication. Notice is duly published in “Nadoj daily newspaper”. Inspite of that the OP.2 to 4, 6, 8 and 10 remains absent hence they have placed exparte. Hence it is well settled legal position that non payment of the amount deposit, amounts to deficiency of service.
10) 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.
11) Taking into consideration of the facts, evidence on record and the discussion made here before deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. have been proved.
12) Accordingly, following order.
ORDER
The complaints are partly allowed.
The O.Ps. represented by the Chairman, Manager and Directors are jointly and severally 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 | 407/2015 | 1840 | 30/01/2006 | 32,000 | 31/04/2012 | 64,000 |
2 | 408/2015 | 1441 | 10/02/2005 | 6,000 | 10/05/2011 | 12,000 |
The matured F.D.R/s. amount as mentioned in column No.7 with future rate of interest 8% P.A. from the dates mentioned at column No.6 respectively till realization of the entire amount.
Further, the O.Ps. represented by the Chairman, Manager and Directors are jointly and severally are hereby directed and liable to pay to the complainant/s a sum of Rs.3,000/- in each complaint, 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.407/2015 and the true copy in other clubbed cases.
(Order dictated, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on: 26th day of August 2016)
Member Member President.
msr*
