Karnataka

Belgaum

CC/710/2014

Venkatesh G Kulkarni - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Chairman of Sri Basaveshwara Cr Sou Saha Nyt - Opp.Party(s)

S G Jamkandi

15 Feb 2016

ORDER

(Order dictated by Smt. Sunita, Member)

: ORDER :

          The complainant has filed complaint against Opponents U/s. 12 of C.P. Act alleging deficiency in service of non payment of the amount of pre matured F.D.R. and amount lying in S.B. Account.

          2) Opponent No.1 and 2 appeared through counsel and filed objection etc.,

          3) In support of the claim of the complainant, complainant has filed his affidavit by way of evidence, original F.D.Rs. and Passbook are produced by the complainant.

          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 opponents and entitled to the reliefs sought?

          6) Our finding on the point is partly in affirmative, for the following reasons.

:: REASONS ::

          7) On perusal contents of the complaint and affidavit filed by the complainant.  The allegations of the complainant are that Sri. Basaveshwara Credit Souharda Sahakari Niyamit, Satti, Tal: Athani D is engaged in Banking business and it is advanced loan with needy persons and also accepting deposit from the customers. The opponents having branch at Athani, Dist. Belagaum. The complainant was interested in investing his hard earned money. In the opponents Souharda Sahakari as the opponents offered better rate of interest and advised the complainant that he should deposit the money under the scheme “Basava Vetana”. The opponents told to the complainant that he would get Rs.1,000/- per month as interest for every One lakh deposited by him. Accordingly the complainant has deposited the sum of Rs.6,00,000/- on 4/5/2010 for a period of 6 years at the rate of 12% P.A. till 05/05/2016. In all there are 3 separate F.D.Rs. of Rs.2,00,000/- each in respect of F.D.Rs. No. 1012, 1013 and 1014. The complainant was promised and got Rs.6,000/- per month as interest till June 2013 and same was credited to his S.B. A/c. bearing No.2336 at the said branch. After July 2013 opponents have not paid any interest to complainant as promised. The complainant had approached opponents Souharda Sahakari number of occasions but they have failed to pay interest as promised under the said scheme to the complainant. Even though the said fixed deposits were to be mature on 5/5/2016, complainant is not interested in continuing the same as opponents have violated terms of the contract and committed breach of contract. Complainant is depending on the interest amount for his livelihood and it is very difficult for him living in the absence of the interest. The opponents failed to pay the interest as promised to the complainant that amounts to deficiency of service as contemplated under the act.

          8) On the other hand the opponent No.1 his self and on behalf of opponent No.2 filed their version and affidavit and contends that on 4/5/2010, the complainant deposited Rs.2,00,000/- and again he deposited Rs.2,00,000/- totally Rs.4,00,000/- in their Souhard Sahakari and the complainant had received interest of the said deposit upto 4/5/2013 at the rate of 12% P.A. Opponents further contends that the wife of the complainant by name Smt. Vandana Venkatesh Kulkarni had deposited Rs.1,00,000/- on 5/4/2010 and the same was to be matured on 16/4/2016. She also received the interest of the same F.D. at the rate of interest 12% P.A. The opponents further contends the complainant being the member of the opponent Souhard Sahakari and availed the heavy loan from this branch and agreed that after the maturity of the said F.D.Rs. he will pay the amount to the Souhard Sahakari. Hence on this count the complaint is labile to be dismissed.

9) The contention of the opponents is that complainant is the member of the Souhard Sahakari and availed the heavy loan from this branch and agreed that after the maturity of the said F.D.Rs. he will pay the amount to the Souhard Sahakari. Even though considering the contention of the opponents that complainant has taken the loan. To establish that there is a loan availed by the complainant, the opponents have not produced a single document to show that the complainant has availed the heavy loan from the opponents Souhard Sahakari. Another contention of opponents that the one F.D.Rs. Rs.2,00,000/- another F.D.R. Rs.2,00,000/- are only on the name of complainant and one more F.D.R. for Rs.1,00,000/- is standing in the name of Smt.Vandana Venkatesh Kulkarni, the wife of complainant. But the F.D.Rs. receipt are produced by the complainant before this forum if are seen shows that, all the F.D.Rs. are standing in the name of complainant alone and also  passbook produced by the complainant shows that it is in the name of complainant himself. Hence contention of the opponents that one of the F.D.R. is standing in the name of complainant’s wife cannot be accepted and believed. The point to be considered here is that the opponents have paid interest on F.D.Rs. upto June 2013 and from July 2013 the complainant is claiming interest till August 2014 that is the date of filing of the complaint. After going through the passbook we notice that the interest has been deposited and as per the claim of the complainant the opponents have not allowed to operate and withdraw the amount in the passbook to the tune of Rs.18,000/- from the month of April 2013 to June 2013 that is of 3 months. The another prayer of the complainant is that the opponents ought to have credited Rs.6,000/- per month from the very next month that is from July 2013 to August 2014 which comes to Rs.84,000/-. The opponents for the sake of denial have denied the contends of the complainant.  Therefore we are of the opinion that the complainant is entitled for Rs.18,000/-+Rs.84,000/- as prayed. We are also of the opinion that if at all the opponents credited Rs.84,000/- in the S.B. Account the opponent would have paid interest to said amount as per the S.B. account rate of interest. Hence the complainant is entitled for the S.B. interest as per R.B.I. Rules. Therefore the complainant has proved the liability of the opponent and opponent are liable to pay pre-matured amount of F.D.Rs. with interest to the complainant and also the amount lying in S.B. Account and as prayed by the complainant.

          10) 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.

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) Hence we proceed to pass the following order;

: ORDER :

          The complaint is partly allowed.

          The O.Ps. represented by the Chairman and Secretary as shown in the cause title jointly and severally are hereby directed and liable to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- each in respect of FDR Nos.1012, 1013 and 1014 respectively with future interest at the rate of 9% P.A. from October 2014 i.e., from the date of filing of complaint till realization of entire amount.

And also the O.Ps. represented by the Chairman and Secretary as shown in the cause title jointly and severally are hereby directed to pay to the complainant a sum total of Rs.18,000/- lying in S.B. A/c. No.2336 with future interest at the rate of 4% P.A. from April 2013 till realization of the entire amount.

The O.Ps. represented by the Chairman and Secretary as shown in the cause title jointly and severally are hereby directed and liable to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.84,000/- balance interest amount to be paid from July 2013 till August 2014 as prayed with future interest at the rate of 4% P.A. for the said period and till realization of the entire amount.

          The O.Ps. represented by the Chairman and Secretary as shown in the cause title jointly and severally are hereby directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards costs of the proceedings.

          Order shall be complied within one month from the date of the order.

If the order is not complied within stipulated period, O.Ps. are hereby directed and liable to pay a sum of Rs.50/- per day to the complainant from the date of disobedience of order, till the order is complied.

          (Order dicted, corrected & then pronounced in the Open Forum on this 15^th day of February 2016)

          Member                    Member                    President

gm*