Karnataka

Belgaum

CC/221/2015

Shankar I Terani - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Chairman Of The Mayur Multipurpose Sou Saha Nyt. Sankeshwar - Opp.Party(s)

Mahaveer B Patil And B R Kapahi

16 Feb 2016

ORDER

(Order dictated by Shri. V.S. Gotakhindi,   Member)

COMMON ORDER

            I. Though the complainants are different they belong to one family and 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 and Manager. Hence for convenience all the cases are disposed of by the common order.

          II. Since there are 4 cases and different 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 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 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  pre matured fixed deposits/deposit and matured F.Ds.

          2) After service of notice Opponents appeared through counsel and did not filed objection and affidavit.

          3) In support of the claim in the complaint, complainant/s has filed affidavit and original F.D.Rs. are produced by the complainant/s. So also, the O.P.No.1 appeared through counsel and filed his objection and affidavit. The O.P.No.2 remained ex-parte.

          4)  We have heard the arguments and perused the records.

          5) Now the point for our consideration is that whether the complainant/s have 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) On perusal contents of the complainants and affidavit filed by the complainant/s. The opponents society had offered to pay the better rate of interest and as such the complainant/s had invested the money in form fixed deposit that is The Mayur Cash Certificate. They have deposited the following sum with opponents, details are as below;

Table -1

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	221/2015	124	6/1/2011	35,000	6/7/2016	70,000
		125	6/1/2011	35,000	6/7/2016	70,000
		129	18/5/2011	51,000	18/11/2016	1,02,000
2	223/2015	179	27/4/2012	5,500	27/10/2017	11,000
		180	27/4/2012	5,500	27/10/2017	11,000
		181	27/4/2012	5,500	27/10/2017	11,000
		182	27/4/2012	5,500	27/10/2017	11,000
		183	27/4/2012	5,500	27/10/2017	11,000
		184	27/4/2012	5,500	27/10/2017	11,000
		185	27/4/2012	5,500	27/10/2017	11,000
		186	27/4/2012	5,500	27/10/2017	11,000
		187	27/4/2012	5,500	27/10/2017	11,000
		188	27/4/2012	5,500	27/10/2017	11,000
3	224/2015	105	14/9/2010	12,500	14/3/2016	25,000

Table-2

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	222/2015	45	3/3/2009	25,400	3/9/2014	50,800
		46	3/3/2009	25,400	3/9/2014	50,800

 

          8) The complainant/s requested the opponents to return the pre matured/matured amount, inspite of that opponents went on postponing the same by assigning one or other reasons. The complainant/s alleges that they were in need of money hence they approached and requested the opponents and learnt that opponent society has been closed and they have sold the property of the society withholding the F.D. amounts of the complainant and refuse to pay the F.D. amounts to the complainant. The complainant further alleged that the complainant/s got issued legal notice through their counsel, said notices were duly served on the opponents, the opponents even after receipt of notice on 28/2/2015 did not reply to the notice. Hence there is a deficiency of service and unfair trade practice played on the part of the opponents.

9) On the other hand, the opponent No.1 filed the objection admitting certain facts and denying certain facts. The opponent No.1 contends and admits the F.D.Rs. of the complainant/s and denies the fact that the complainant/s has approached the society and the complainant/s are not entitled for the interest as claimed by them in the complaint/s. The opponent No.1 further contends that the interest will be charged as per the procedure on invested amount and the complainant/s are liable for S.B. rate of interest. The opponent No.1 further contends that the relief does not tally with the pleadings and the complaint is not maintainable in the eye of law and deserve to be dismissed etc.,

10) On perusal of the fixed deposit receipts produced by the complainant/s are to be matured on the dates mentioned in column No.6 of table No.1 and the F.D.Rs. produced by the complainant in complaint No.222/2015 are already matured in the year 2014 and dates are shown in the column No.6 of the table No.2. The opponent No.1 in his objection and affidavit as admitted the claim of the complainant/s and also amount invested but as the complainant/s are claiming pre-matured F.D.R. amount the O.P.No.1 contends that they are entitle for the interest at the rate of and as per the interest paid to the Saving Banks/Saving Deposit account. But the point to be noted here is that the rate of interest shown in the F.D.Rs. is 14% and the period of deposit in all the F.D.R. is more than 5 years from the date of deposits. According to the rules and guidelines of Reserve Bank of India one depositor claiming pre-matured F.D.R. or amount invested are entitle for 3% lesser than the agreed rate of interest. Hence in the particular complaint/s before the forum the rate of interest in the F.D.Rs. is 14%. Therefore we are of the opinion that as per the rules and guidelines of R.B.I. if the rate of interest is reduced in 14%, the complainant/s are entitle for 11% of interest and not the S.B. rate of interest as contended by the opponent No.1 in his objection and affidavit. The complainant in complaint No . 222/2015 is entitle for matured amount and the F.D.Rs. are shown in separate table as supra.

11) The complainant/s have also produced the copy of legal notice issued to the opponents along with the postal receipts and acknowledgements. The complainant/s have filed their written argument and also we have heard both the counsels and perused the documents. Hence, the claim of the complainant/s that inspite of the demands made the amount under F.D.Rs. 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 and the complainant/s have proved deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opponents.

          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/s are partly allowed.

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

Table No. -1

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	221/2015	124	6/1/2011	35,000	6/7/2016	70,000
		125	6/1/2011	35,000	6/7/2016	70,000
		129	18/5/2011	51,000	18/11/2016	1,02,000
2	223/2015	179	27/4/2012	5,500	27/10/2017	11,000
		180	27/4/2012	5,500	27/10/2017	11,000
		181	27/4/2012	5,500	27/10/2017	11,000
		182	27/4/2012	5,500	27/10/2017	11,000
		183	27/4/2012	5,500	27/10/2017	11,000
		184	27/4/2012	5,500	27/10/2017	11,000
		185	27/4/2012	5,500	27/10/2017	11,000
		186	27/4/2012	5,500	27/10/2017	11,000
		187	27/4/2012	5,500	27/10/2017	11,000
		188	27/4/2012	5,500	27/10/2017	11,000
3	224/2015	105	14/9/2010	12,500	14/3/2016	25,000

 

          To pay the pre-matured F.D.R/s. amounts to the complainant/s as mentioned in column No.5 with future interest at the rate of 11% P.A. from the dates mentioned in column No.4 respectively till realization of the entire amount.

And also the O.Ps. represented by the Chairman and Manager jointly and severally are hereby directed and liable to pay to the complainant in complaint No.222/2015, 

Table-2

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	222/2015	45	3/3/2009	25,400	3/9/2014	50,800
		46	3/3/2009	25,400	3/9/2014	50,800

         

          The matured amounts as shown in column No.7 with future interest at the rate of 8% from the dates mentioned in column No.6 respectively till realization of entire amount.

          Further, the O.P. represented by the Chairman and Manager jointly and severally are hereby directed and liable to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- 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/s from the date of disobedience of order, till the order is complied.

The original order shall be kept in complaint No.221/2015 and the true copy in other clubbed cases.

 (Order dictated, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on: 16^th day of February 2016)

Member                Member                            President.

gm*