IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM BELAGAVI.

DATED 26^th day of August 2016

Complaint Nos.628/2015

Presented:                1) Shri. B.V.Gudli,                     President.

                        2) Shri. V.S. Gotakhindi,            Member

                        3) Smt. Sunita                           Member

-***-

Complainant:     

        1)      Smt. Sharada W/o. Raosaheb Desai,

                   Age: 58years, Occ: Doctor,

                   R/o: Datta Prasad Apartment,

                   Devlay Khandola, Marcel,

                   Goa-403107.

          2)      Dr. Sheetal R. Jagtap

                   Age: 36years, Occ: Doctor,

                   R/o: Datta Prasad Apartment,

                   Devlay Khandola, Marcel,

                   Goa-403107.     

3)      Dr. Shilpa Raosaheb Desai,

                   Age: 34years, Occ: Doctor,

                   R/o: Datta Prasad Apartment,

                   Devlay Khandola, Marcel,

                   Goa-403107.

4)      Shri. Shridhar S/o. Raosaheb Desai,

                   Age: 32years, Occ: Doctor,

                   R/o: Datta Prasad Apartment,

                   Devlay Khandola, Marcel,

                   Goa-403107.

                             (By Sri.Ajay Sunalkar, Advocate)

V/s.

Opponents:1)      The Chairman ,

The Belagavi Liberal Credit Souhard Co-Op. Ltd., Kapileshwar Road,

Belagavi.

                   2)      The Vice Chairman ,

The Belagavi Liberal Credit Souhard Co-Op. Ltd., Kapileshwar Road,

Belagavi.   

                   3)      The C.E.O.,

The Belagavi Liberal Credit Souhard Co-Op. Ltd., Kapileshwar Road,

Belagavi.

(O.Ps are placed ex-parte)

(Order dictated by Shri. B.V.Gudli, President)

: ORDER :

          1) The relevant facts of the case is that the respective complainant/s have filed the complaint 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) Notice was issued against Opponents. Opponents were remained absent. Hence they have placed ex-parte.

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

          4) We have heard the arguments of complainant/s advocate and perused the records.

5)      The complainant/s have filed delay condonation application U/s.24(A) of C.P.Act and after service of notice OPs failed to appear before the forum. Hence OPs have been placed exparte. On perusal of the contents of the application  there are sufficient grounds to condone the delay. Hence delay is condoned.

          6) Now the point for our consideration is that whether the complainant/s have proved deficiency in service on the part of the opponents and entitled to the reliefs sought?

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

:: REASONS ::

          8) The complainant/s filed their affidavit by way of evidence and they have stated in their affidavit that the complainant/s are the permanent resident of Goa and for the future maintenance and to solve the financial problem they were very much interested to invest their saved money in fixed deposits scheme and to get better interest, the complainant/s have approached the opponents Souhard Co-Operative  and they have invested their saved money in the said fixed deposits with the opponents as detailed under;

Table NO.I

Table NO.II

9) The complainant/s further stated that after the maturity of the said F.D.Rs. and to solve the financial problems complainant/s approached the opponents society personally and requested for the release of the said fixed deposits matured amount with interest, but the opponents are postponing the same on one or the other reasons. Thus opponents caused deficiency of service and due to the deficiency on the part of the opponents their financial problems are not solved within time. Hence complainant/s constrained to file this complaint before this forum.

7) Lastly fed up with the opponents behavior She has issued legal notice through her advocate on 16/03/2016 calling upon the opponents for the immediate release of F.D.R. amount with interest. The notice is received by the OPs, 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 .

          10) On perusal of documents produced by the complainant  and F.D. Receipts which are standing in the name of complainant and having deposited amount in the O.P. society, in-spite of maturity the opponents have not paid the maturity amount and O.Ps. failed to pay F.D.Rs. amount after maturity period. The O.Ps. after service of the notice, failed to appear before the forum and failed to pay maturity amount and hence there is deficiency in service on the part of the opponents. The complainant/s further alleged that the complainant/s got issued legal notice through their counsel on 24/11/2015, said notice was duly served on the opponents, the opponents even after receipt of notice did not reply to the notice. On perusal contents of the affidavit and documents produced by the complainant/s, the complainant/s have proved deficiency in service on part of opponents.

          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) 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.

          13) Accordingly, following order.

: ORDER :

          The complaint is partly allowed.

The O.Ps. represented by the Chairman, Vice Chairman and C.E.O., are hereby directed and liable to pay to the complainant/s as ordered below;

Table NO.I

The amount as shown in column No.6 with future interest at the rate of 8% P.A. from the dates mentioned in column No.5 respectively till realization of the entire F.D.Rs. amount.

Further the O.Ps. represented by the Chairman, Vice Chairman and C.E.O., are hereby directed and liable to pay to the complainant/s as ordered below;

Table NO.II

The amount as shown in column No.3 with agreed rate of interest shown in column no.6 from the date mentioned in column no.4 upto the dates mentioned in column no.5 with future rate of interest @8% P.A. from the dates mentioned in column No.5 respectively till realization of the entire F.D.Rs. amount.

          The O.P. represented by the Chairman, Vice Chairman and C.E.O., are hereby directed and liable to pay to the complainant/s a sum of Rs.3,000/- towards cost 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 to pay a sum of Rs.50/- per day to the complainant/s from the date of disobedience of order, till the order is complied.

          (Order dictated, corrected & then pronounced in the Open Forum on this 26^th day of August 2016)

          Member                    Member                    President

msr*