Karnataka

Belgaum

CC/33/2015

Mahadev S Kamate - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Chairman Of The Bhagyoday Co-Op Cr Scty Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

P S Gudage

25 Apr 2016

ORDER

(Order dictated by Smt. Sunita, Member)

COMMON ORDER

            I. Though the complainant/s are Same, their grievances, allegations and the facts pleaded are same except the details of the deposits by the respective complainant/s. In both the cases the O.P. society is same, represented by Chairman and Secretary. Hence for convenience both the cases are disposed of by the common order.

          II. Since there are 2 cases and different complainant/s 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 cases 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 complainant/s 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) Notices were issued against Opponents through paper publication dated: 12/1/2015. Opponents No.1 and 2 appeared through counsel filed objection and affidavit etc.,       

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

          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 O.Ps. and entitled to the reliefs sought?

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

:: R E A S O N S ::

          7) The complainant/s filed their affidavit by way of evidence and they have stated in their respective affidavits that, for the future maintenance and to solve the educational financial problems in future, the complainant/s has invested his saved money in O.P. Society in fixed deposit Scheme wherein he can get better interest. The complainant/s have approached the opponents society and they have invested the saved money in the said fixed deposits in Op’s society detailed as under;

Sl. No.	Complaint No.	F.D.R No.	Date of deposit	Amount deposited	Date of maturity	matured Amount
1	2	3	4	5	6	7
1	32/2015	000830	18/4/2005	5,000	18/10/2011	10,000
		000961	22/5/2006	10,000	22/11/2012	20,000
2	33/2015	000873	11/8/2005	25,000	11/2/2012	50,000

          8) On the other hand the opponents filed objection and admits the deposits of complainant/s and denying the other all allegations of the complainant/s. The O.P’s all along the objection have state away denied that the complainant/s has approached the O.P. society and requested to release the F.D. amount. The O.P’s. further denied that on 19/10/2011 and after that on 22/11/2012 the complainant personally approached the society to encash the fix deposits. Hence there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opponents, the question does not arise to file the complaint by the complainant/s against the opponents. Hence prays for dismissed the complaint.

9) On perusal evidence affidavit and documents produced by the complainant/s and F.D.R. A/c. No.26 produced by the complainant he had deposited a sum of Rs.10,000/- on 6/5/2008 said F.D.R. was matured on 6/11/2013 and maturity amount was Rs.20,000/-. F.D.R. is standing in the name of the complainant. On perusal evidence affidavit of the complainant, after maturity of F.D.R. the opponents has not paid F.D.R. amount. Hence, the claim of the complainant 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.

       10) After service of notice, Opponents No. 1 and 2 appeared through their counsel and filed objection but did not filed affidavit. Hence the affidavit of O.P’s taken as not filed. After granting the sufficient time the OP’s. have not argue the matter. Hence the argument of OP’s side is taken as heard.

      11) On perusal evidence affidavit of the complainant/s, the F.D.R’s are in the name of complainant’s and after maturity of F.D.R/s. the opponents have not paid F.D.R/s. 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.

      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) 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.

      14) Accordingly, following order.

: ORDER :

 

          The complaints are partly allowed.

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

Sl. No.	Complaint No.	F.D.R No.	Date of deposit	Amount deposited	Date of maturity	matured Amount
1	2	3	4	5	6	7
1	32/2015	000830	18/4/2005	5,000	18/10/2011	10,000
		000961	22/5/2006	10,000	22/11/2012	20,000
2	33/2015	000873	11/8/2005	25,000	11/02/2012	50,000

The matured F.D.R/s. amount as mentioned in column No.7 with future interest at the rate of 9% P.A. from the dates mentioned in column No.6 respectively till realization of the entire F.D.Rs. amount.

          Further, the O.Ps. represented by the Chairman and Secretary are hereby directed and liable to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- 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.32/2015 and the true copy in other clubbed cases.

 (Order dictated, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on: 25^th day of April 2016)

Member                Member                            President.