IN THE DIST.CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM BELAGAVI.

Dated this 22 September 2017

Complaint Nos. 298/2014

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

                        2) Smt.Sunita                            Member

-***-

Complainant/s:

                   Smt. Kanta w/o.Sahadev Patil,      

Age: major, Occ: Household,

                   R/o. Chougalewadi, Belagavi.

(By Shri. V.T.Sonwalkar, Adv)

                                                          V/s.

Opponent/s:

1.      The Chairman,

Shree Aashraya Souhard Credit Society Ltd.,

760, Kalmath Road, Belagavi.

2.      The Secretary,

Shree Aashraya Souhard Credit Society Ltd.,

760, Kalmath Road, Belagavi.

 3.     The Branch Manager,

Shree Aashraya Souhard Credit Society Ltd.,

Hadgal Mansion, Narvekar Galli branch, Belagavi.

 (OP.1&3 By Sri.S.R.Sakri, Adv & OP.2 Exparte)

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

ORDER

          U/s.12 of the C.P. Act, complainant has filed the complaint against the O.Ps. alleging deficiency in service for non payment of the matured FDRs amount.

          2) Upon service of notice OP.1&3 appeared though their advocate and filed objections, affidavit  and produced some documents. Inspite of service of notice OP.2 remained absent. Hence, placed ex-parte.

          3) In support of the claim in the complaint, complainant has filed her affidavit and original FDRs are produced by the complainant. Written argument is filed for both the parties.

          4) We have heard the argument of both counsels 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) On perusal contents of the complainant and affidavit filed by the complainant the complainant had kept her amount in OP souhard as detailed below.

After maturity of the FDRs the complainant visited OP souhard and requested to release matured FDRs amount with interest, but the OPs postponed the same on one or other reasons. Hence complainant issued legal notice to opponents on 22.08.2013 calling upon OPs to release matured FDRs amount with interest, but OPs failed comply the same. The OPs committed deficiency in service as contemplated under the provision of the consumer protection act 1986. Therefore the complainant is constrained to file this complaint against OPs.

8)      Upon service of notice OP.1&3 appeared though their advocate and filed objections denying and disputing the complaint averments and further contended that, the complainant had retained the deposits under FDR are not admitted as the alleged deposits are under masik vetan yojana under No.78/35, Dhanavridhi scheme under FD A/c.No.492 and others under No.493 & 494 which are to be established by the complainant. There are no sources of the documents/ claims are which are being provided and produced. There are no details of remittance of the cash as alleged in the claims & complaint. As per the records all these amounts are transferred from Savings Deposit account to another, which has no relevance towards retention of the deposits. The complainant had never approached the OP sahakari after deposit of amounts. The complainant has not provided KYC documents. Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs and accordingly prays for dismissal of the complaint.

9)      On perusal of objections and the affidavit filed by OPs the OPs have taken different contentions in their objections and affidavit. On the one hand the OPs deny the deposits made by the complainant in their objections and on the other hand the OPs in their evidence affidavit have admitted the deposits made by the complainant and interest paid on the deposits. The OPs in their objections have also stated that complainant had withdrawn Rs.98098/- & collected the amount on 25.06.2011. But to prove these contentions the OPs have not produced any documents before the forum.

10)    The OPs have taken another contention that, the complainant has not complied KYC documents. The OPs are at liberty to collect KYC documents from the complainant at the time of release of payment.

11)    The original FDRs produced by the complainant are standing in the name of the complainant. After service of the notice OP.2 remained absent. Hence, placed ex-parte. The complainant has filed memo of calculation dt.09.10.2015 stating that, FDR A/c. No.78 Masik Vetan Yojana interest has been paid by the OPs till the date of maturity i.e. upto 29.10.2012 and the remaining FDRs interest and principal amount has not been paid. Therefore, 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 matured FDRs amount, amounts to deficiency in service.

      12) 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. has been proved.

       13) Accordingly the following  

:ORDER:

          The complaint is partly allowed.

          The Opponents. 1 to 3 as shown in the cause title are hereby jointly & severally directed and liable to pay the complainant as ordered below.

The matured FDRs amount at column.6 with future interest @6% P.A. from the date of maturity till realization of the entire amount.

Further, the Opponents. 1 to 3 as shown in the cause title are hereby jointly & severally directed and liable to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- to the complainant towards costs of the proceedings.

          The order shall be complied within 30 days from the date of the order.

(Order dictated, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on: 22 September 2017)

MSR