Karnataka

Belgaum

CC/286/2015

Varun U Kanzar - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Chairman Of Shri Ragunath Cr Sou Saha Nyt Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

S V Ganachari

15 May 2017

ORDER

ADDITIONAL  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BELAGAVI

C.C.No.285/2015 to 288/2015

                     Date of filing: 06/06/2015

                                                                               Date of disposal: 15/05/2017

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.
COMPLAINANTS      -	1.     2.       3.     4.		Akash Umesh Kanzar, Age : 19 Years, Occ : Student, R/o : Plot No.38, Pratiba Nagar, Nippani. Tq: Chikkodi, Dist. Belagavi.                                      (In C.C.No.285/2015)   Varun Umesh Kanzar, Age : 15, Occ : Student, Rep. by Natural Guardian by his Father Umesh Jaysing Kanzar, R/o : Plot No.38, Pratiba Nagar, Nippani. Tq: Chikkodi, Dist. Belagavi.                                      (In C.C.No.286/2015)   Smt. Neha D/o Ramachandra Chavan, Age : 22 Years, Occ : Student, R/o : Plot No.38, Pratiba Nagar, Nippani. Tq: Chikkodi, Dist. Belagavi.                                      (In C.C.No.287/2015)                                    Smt. Ranjana Sadanand Patil, Age : 59 Years, Occ : Housewife, R/o : Plot No.38, Pratiba Nagar, Nippani. Tq: Chikkodi, Dist. Belagavi.                                      (In C.C.No.288/2015)          (Rep. by Sri.S.V.Ganachari. Adv.)

- V/S –

OPPOSITE PARTIES  -

The Chairman, Shri. Raghunath Credit Souhard Sahakari Niyamit Ltd., Nippani, At: Post: Nippani, Nehru Chowk, (Tanaji Chowk), Dhere Building, 1st Floor, Tq:Chikodi, Dist.Belgaum.   The Secretary, Shri. Raghunath Credit Souhard Sahakari Niyamit Ltd., Nippani, At: Post: Nippani, Nehru Chowk, (Tanaji Chowk), Dhere Building, 1st Floor, Tq:Chikodi, Dist.Belgaum.        (OP.No.1 & 2 by Sri.M.A.Deshpande, Adv.)

 

By Shri. A.G. Maldar, President

 

 

COMMON JUDGEMENT

            I. Though the complainants are same, their grievances, allegations and the facts pleaded are same except the details of the deposits by the respective complainants. In all these cases the O.Ps. are same. Hence, for convenience all the cases are disposed off by the common order.

          II. Since there are 4 cases and having same addresses of complainants and Ops 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 Ops, alleging deficiency in banking service of non refund of the matured fixed deposits amount and further submitted that, earlier the complainants have filed Compt.No.665/14, 667/14, 670/14 and 671/2014  before this Forum and the said case was withdrawn due to some technical problem and Hon’ble Court has permitted the complainants to file fresh complaints. Hence, the complainants have constrained to file these complaints.

 

           2)     The complainants have filed an application U/s. 24(A) of the C.P. Act and the same have been allowed in Compt.No.665/14, 667/14, 670/14 and 671/2014  and the delay has been condoned at the stage of admission itself by this Forum on dtd: 14.10.2014 as delay is condoned by allowing the I.A.-I.

 

          3) After issue of notice to the Ops, the Op.No.2 has appeared through his Counsel and resisted the claim of the complainants by filing their written version and OP.No.1 filed memo and stating that, the written version of Op.No.2 adopt the same and OP.No.2 denied the all allegation except deposit etc., and deficiency in service and contended that, there is no cause of action and alleged that, the complainants have not approached the OP society and allegations made are baseless.

4) Both the parties have filed their affidavits in lieu of evidence in support of their case. The complainants have produced 05 documents i.e. Original F.D. receipts, Legal Notice, Postal Receipts, Postal Acknowledgement and Order Sheet, for sake of our conveniences, we have marked as Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-5. On the contrary the Ops have not produced any documents, the Adv. for complainants have filed their written argument. Heard the argument of both sides.

 

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

 

1. Whether the complainants have prove that there is deficiency in service on the part of the OPs for not settling/refunding the F.Ds. amount?

 

2. What order?

 

          6) Our finding on the points are as follows;

 

1.      Affirmative.

          2.      As per final Order.

 R E A S O N S

7) On the perusal contents of the complaints and affidavit filed by the complainants, the complainants have stated that, the OP.No.1 Society has offered to pay higher rate of interest to the deposits and contended that, the depositor would be permitted to encashed on demand, believing in the words of the OP.No.1 the complainant’s father have deposited their hard earned money in the Ops society in the form of fixed deposits. The fixed deposits made by the complainant’s father are as under:

 

Compt No.	Sl.No.	F.D. A/c No.	Amount invested	Date of deposit	ROI	Period
1	2	3	4	5	6	7
285/15	1.	52	4400	14.11.96	16%	On demand
	2	2212	2013	11.03.06	8%	46 days & above
286/15	1.	2212	10064	11.03.06	8%	46 days & above
	2	2191	58770	07.02.06	9%	30 days & above
287/15	1	2213	80508	01.09.06	8%	46 days & above
288/15	1	23	67000	06.10.04	9%	1 Year & above
	2	5	63660	01.05.06	8%	46 days & above
	3	5	100000	10.07.03	14%	2 Years & above

         

          8)      The complainant/s submits that, the deposits are already matured and after maturity of the said FDRs the complainant/s approached the OPs many times & requested to pay the maturity amount but, their demands are not materialized & OPs have not paid the matured amount to the complainant/s. During the month of February 2014, complainant/s approached the OPs & requested to pay the maturity amount with interest but, the OPs refused to refund/release the FD maturity amount with interest without any valid reason. The OPs inspite of repeated demands made by the complainant/s failed to release the amount in favour of complainants, it amounts to deficiency of service on the part of OPs. Lastly fed up with behavior of Ops, the complainant/s issued legal notices on dtd: 28.06.2014 calling upon the OPs to make payment of FDRs matured amount with interest. The notices have been duly served on the OPs. Inspite of service, the OPs have failed in making payment of matured FDR amount with interest & not issued any reply to the said notice. Therefore the complainants are constrained to file these complaints against OPs souhard.

9)      On perusal contents of written version filed by the OPs, the OPs admits that, the deposits kept by the complainant/s in OPs society. The OPs in their written version contends that, the complainants are the member of Souhard Sahakari cannot maintain a complaints against OPs and further contended that, the complainants/s is the ex-chairman of Souhard society and had recommended many loans for release & had been taking the personal guarantees for the recovery of the loans and thereby the complaints be dismissed on this count. The OPs further contends that, the complainants have deposited the amount for the period of 30 days and above, 46 days & above, 1 year & above and 2 years & above i.e. till the next slab & the complainants are not entitled to any interest or cost & prays for dismissal of the complaints.   

10)    On perusal of contents of complaints and affidavit filed by the complainants the FDRs are in the name of the complainant/s & in Compt.286/15 the father of the complainant is the minor guardian of the complainant. On perusal written version & affidavit of the Ops, the OPs contends that, the complainants are the member of Souhard Sahakari cannot maintain a complaints against Ops and OPs further contended that, the complainant had recommended many loans for release & had been taking the personal guarantees for the recovery of the loans and thereby the complaints be dismissed on this count. Even though considering this point of the OPs, the OPs have not produced any bylaws or rules & regulations to show that, the member of Souhard sahakari has not any power to file the complaint before this Forum & for this being the matter of non payment of matured amount with interest to the complainant/s after the maturity itself amounts deficiency of service & number of cases of apex court have decided on this point that, Consumer Forum have jurisdiction to entertain the complaints. Hence, mere contention of OPs is not believed and accepted. The another contention of the OPs is that, the complainant is the ex-chairman of the souhard and has recommended many loans for release & had been taking the personal guarantees for the recovery of the loans. Coming to the point & as per the rules, bylaws of Souhard sahakari it will be collective decision of all committee members to sanction the loan to any person who approaches the society for loan & after recommendation of all members loans would be sanctioned. Therefore taking the defense that, the complainant recommended many loans, the OPs are not entitled to return/refund matured FD amount is not justified in the eyes of law.

11)    Moreover the OPs have not produced any document to show that, the complainant recommended many loans for release & had been taking the personal guarantees for the recovery of the loans & he was the ex-chairman of the souhard. The another contention of the OPs is that, the complainant deposited the amount for the period of 30 days and above, 46 days & above, 1 year & above and 2 years & above i.e. till the next slab & the complainant is not entitled to any interest or cost, for that proposition the Ops have not lead the affidavit evidence and not produced any cogent and material documents to hold that, the complainants have not entitled to any interest or cost as per slab as alleged in the written version. Therefore, the OP.No.2 has failed to establish as stated in the written version. Therefore, the contention of the OP.No.2 cannot be hold good and it is not acceptable and it has no merit at all.

12) On perusal evidence affidavit of the complainant, the complainant/s produced Original FDRs receipt, the FDRs are in the name of complainant/s and after maturity of F.D.Rs, the opponents  have not paid matured F.D.Rs 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.

13)    No-doubt it is true that, the conduct of OPs in not paying the matured amount, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the Ops and the complainants are claiming the future interest
@ 18% p.a. for that proposition, the Counsel of the complainants relied a reported decision of Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi 2015 (2) CPR 322 (NC), the relied decisions are not applicable to this case, for the reason that, the said relied decision is regarding agreed rate of interest and in the said case the complainants have approached the Ops and demanded the deposits FD amounts, whereas in the instant case, the FD maturity amounts matured since long and in the instant cases the complainants have not produced any cogent material documents to show that, complainants have made effort towards demand of FDs amount only after lapse of so many years, the complainants have issued legal notice demanding matured FD amounts. Hence, with due respect, the relied decision is not applicable to these cases for awarding rate of interest and facts and circumstances of the case are totally different. 

 

14)    Taking into consideration of the facts, evidence on record and the discussion made here before the complainants have proved the deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. But, the complainants have failed to prove in respect of entitle of interest i.e. total recoverable amount which has mentioned in complaints coloum. Under such circumstances, and in our opinion that, the complainants are entitle as per agreed rate which has been mentioned in the respective F.D. receipts amount and further the complainants are entitle interest @ 9 % p.a. on the said agreed matured respective F.Ds. receipts amount from the date of legal notice i.e. 20.08.2014 till realization. It would be just and proper to award a compensation of Rs.2,000/- for inconvenience and mental agony and we also award towards litigation expenses of Rs.1,000/- each of the complainant. Accordingly, we answer to the above point No 1 in affirmative.  Hence, we proceed to pass the following.

O R D E R

           

For the reason discuss above, the complaints filed by the complainants U/s 12 of the C.P. Act – 1986 in Complaint Nos.285/2015, 286/2015, 287/2015 and 288/2015 are here by partly allowed with costs.

          The OP.No.1 & 2 jointly and severally are hereby directed to pay the respective F.Ds. receipts amount to the complainants as per agreed rate which has been mentioned in the respective F.D. receipts amount and further the complainants are entitle interest @ 9 % p.a. on the said agreed matured respective F.Ds. receipts amount from the date of legal notice i.e. 20.08.2014 till realization.

          Further, the OP.No.1 & 2 jointly and severally are hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.1,000/- towards cost of the proceedings each complainant.

          The order shall be complied within 10 weeks from the date of this order.

If the order is not complied within 10 weeks from the date of this order, the complainants are entitled to recover with Additional interest @ 2 % p.a. from the date of complaint i.e. 06.06.2015 till its realization.

The original order shall be kept in complaint No.285/2015 and the true copy in other clubbed cases.

           (Order dictated, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on: 15^th day of May 2017).

   

Sri. A.G.Maldar,     President.

Smt. J.S. Kajagar,    Lady Member.