Karnataka

Belgaum

CC/103/2015

Laxmanrao S Tamadaddi - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Chairman Shree Aashraya Sou Cr Scty Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

R J Bhadale And A R Bhadale

14 Dec 2016

ORDER

                

ADDITIONAL  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BELAGAVI

C.C.No.103/2015

                     Date of filing: 21/02/2015

                                                                  Date of disposal: 14/12/2016

 

P R E S E N T :-

 

	(1)	Shri. A.G.Maldar, B.Com,LL.B. (Spl.) President.
	(2)	Smt.J.S. Kajagar, B.Sc. LLB. (Spl.)  Lady Member.

 

 

COMPLAINANT   -

Shri.Laxmanrao S/o Siddappa Tamadaddi, Age: 63 Years, Occ: Retire, R/o: Plot No.225, Laxmi Sadan, Behind SBI Bank, Hanuman Nagar, 1st Stage, Belagavi.                        (Rep. by Sri. R.J. Bhadale, Adv.)

 

- V/S -

 

OPPOSITE PARTIES  -

1.       2.

The Chairman, Shree Aashraya Souharda Credit Society Ltd., 760, Kalmath Road, Belagavi.   The Manager, Shree Aashraya Souharda Credit Society Ltd., 760, Kalmath Road, Belagavi.                             (Rep. by Sri. S.R. Sakri, Adv.                                              for Op.No.1 & 2)

JUDGEMENT

 

By  Sri.A.G. Maldar, President.

 

 

1.      This is a Complaint filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (herein after referred to as Act) against the Opposite Parties (in short the “Ops”) directed to pay an amount of Rs.2,72,274/- with interest @12% p.a. quarterly compoundable from 18.01.2014 till the date of complete payments and compensation of Rs.20,000/- towards Mental agony any other reliefs etc.,

 

2.      The facts of the case in brief are that;

 

          It is case of the complainant is that, the complainant had made fixed deposit in Dhanavridhhi Scheme of Rs.2,00,000/-  on 18.01.2011 under A/c No.1404/38  for a period of 15 months i.e. 18.01.2011 to 18.04.2012 with interests @11% p.a. with maturity of Rs.2,29,055/- to the OPs society. The complainant further contended that, after maturity period, the complainant went to OPs society to release his F.D. amount. But, the OP society has insisted the complainant to reinvest the same deposit amount further for the period of 21 months. Accordingly, the complainant has reinvested the fixed deposit of Rs.2,29,055/- from 18.04.2012 to 18.01.2014 with interest @10% p.a. and OP society agreed to refund the fixed deposit amount with maturity of Rs.2,72,274/- .

 

It is further complainant contended that, after maturity period, the complainant requested the Ops to release his F.D. amount. But, the OP society postponed the same by giving one or the other reasons. Hence, there is deficiency of service on the part of OPs, finally the complainant had issued legal notice to the OPs on 09.02.2015. Even after the service of the notice the Ops have not made any payments. Hence, the complainant has constrained to file this complaint.   

 

3.      After issue of notice to the Opponents, the Op.No.1 has appeared through his counsel & Op.No.2 has neither appeared nor filed any version before this Forum. The OP.No.2 is placed Ex-parte and the OP.No.1 contended that, the complainant is the member of Souhard Sahakari and cannot maintain complaint against Souharda Sahakari as complainant has recourse to Sec.39 of KSS Act the court has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The OP.No.1 further contended that, the complaint is filed through Power of Attorney Holder and without compliance of the K.Y.C. Norms and court has no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint.

 

          It is further contended that, after maturity of F.D. amount, the OP had called upon the complainant to comply with the K.Y.C. Norms and immediately without confronting any details, the complainant had desired to reinvest the same matured amounts with the society, to claim the benefits under the I.T. Deductions and expressed his inability as he was not possessing the Pan Card, the Op had renewed the said F.D. on 17.01.2014 till 18.01.2014 to provide him benefits of matured sum, but without complying to provisions, he had falsely contended in respect of the said claims.  The opponent No.1 contends that, the complainant has never approached the society for seeking the maturity F.D. receipts and it was already notified on the receipt that maturity amounts/interest payable is subject to TDS as per the Income Tax Act Rules. Hence the opponent No.1 prays to dismiss the complaint.

 

 4.     Both the parties have filed their affidavits in lieu of evidence in support of their case. The documents produced on behalf of the complainant for shake of our convenience we have marked as Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-5. On behalf of Opponent has not filed any documents. The Adv. for Complainant has filed his Written Argument and heard the argument of both sides. After perusing the pleadings, documents and objections.

 

Now, the following points that arise for our consideration in deciding the case are;

 

1.  Whether the complainant has proved that there is deficiency in service on the part of the OPs for not refund the F.D. amount?

 

2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the   

 relief as is sought for?

 

3.  What order?

 

5.         Our findings to the above points are as under:

 

 

1.  Affirmative.
2.  Partly Affirmative.
3.  As per final Order.

 

 

R E A S O N S :-

 

6.      Point No.1 : We have gone  through the pleadings, evidence of complainant and as well as documents on record. It is admitted fact that, the complainant has deposited the amounts to secure his future and made deposit under A/c No.1404/38 on 18.01.2011 for a period of 15 months @ 11% p.a. an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- and maturity date is 18.04.2012  and the maturity Value of Rs.2,29,055/-. It is further case of the complainant that, after maturity period of F.D. the OP society has insisted to the complainant that, the said F.D. amount reinvest for a period of 21 months and further case of the complainant is that, the OP society  will release the entire maturity F.D. amount, the same is believed the words of the OP society, therefore, the complainant has again reinvested of Rs.2,29,055/- on 18.04.2012 for a period of 21 months and maturity date is 18.01.2014  and the maturity Value of Rs.2,72,274/-.

 

On perusal affidavit evidence of the complainant and the document produced by the complainant i.e. the Original F.D. receipt which is already marked as Ex.P-1 standing in the name of complainant and complainant being an old aged person, the claim of the complainant in respect of F.D. amount, even though the complainant is depending on the interest amount for his livelihood and it is very difficult for his living in the absence of the interest. The Ops failed to pay the interest as promised to the complainant despite request and even the OP society is not refund the F.D. amount. Hence, these attitude and acts of the OPs is amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the OPs society as contemplated under the C.P. Act.

 

The Ops put forth in his objection and taken contention in written version of the OP.No.1, the main contention of the Opponent is that, the complainant has not approached to the Sahakari and not furnished the KYC norms as required under law to claim the benefits under the I.T. Deductions and the complainant is not entitle for the interest as agreed. For that proposition of law, the OP has failed to establish as stated in the written version. Therefore, the contention of the OP cannot be hold good and it is not acceptable.

 

 Moreover, the said F.D. deposit is not been denied by the OP.No.1 except the contents taken in the objection, as to KYC norms and interest. Therefore, in our considered view that, on perusal of the contents of the affidavit evidence and documents produced by the complainant and notices were issued by the complainant through his counsel, the said notices are duly served on the Ops. In-spite of service of notice OPs failed to reply to the said notice and failed to pay the fixed deposit amount as well as interest to the complainant. The OPs violated the terms of the contract to pay interest as promised to the complainant that amounts to deficiency in service as contemplated under the act. Therefore, there is deficiency in service on the part of the OPs has been proved by the complainant. Hence, we answer to the Point No.1 in Affirmative.

 

7.      Point No.2 : It is a duty of the Opponents that, when the complainant is ready to take maturity amount of OP society a mandatory duty on the part of OPs by giving the make good payment which has fixed deposited by the complainant in Ops society, the Ops agreed to pay the F.D. amount with interest @ 8 % p.a. from the date of maturity, till the date of payment.  Hence, in our considered opinion that, the Ops not only liable to pay the matured amount, but they are also liable to pay compensation of Rs.2,000/- towards inconvenience and mental agony and Rs.1,000/- towards cost of litigation to the complainant, with this we answer to Point No.2 in partly Affirmative.

 

8.      Point No: 3:- With these findings on Point No.1 & 2, we proceed to pass the following;

           

:ORDER:

 

          For the reasons discussed above, the complaint filed by the complainant U/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is hereby partly allowed with costs.

 

The O.Ps. are hereby directed to pay the deposited an amount of Rs.2,72,274/- in respect of Aashraya Dhanavridhhi Scheme A/c. No. 1404/38 to the complainant with interest @ 8% P.A. from the date of maturity i.e. 18.01.2014 till realization.

 

Further, the O.Ps. are hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/-  towards mental agony and Rs.1,000/-  being the cost of the litigation to the Complainant.

 

          The order shall be complied within 10 weeks from the date of this order, failing to which the complainant is entitled to additional interest @ 1.5 % p.a. from the date of complaint till its realization.

 

 

            (This order is dictated to the Stenographer, transcript edited, corrected and then pronounced in the open forum on this 14^th day of December, 2016).

 

Sri. A.G.Maldar,     President.

Smt. J.S. Kajagar,    Lady Member.