Karnataka

Belgaum

CC/24/2016

Milind A Angolkar - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

D H Choudhari

30 Jun 2017

ORDER

IN THE DIST.CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM BELAGAVI.

Dated this 30 June 2017

1. Complaint No. 24/2016
2. Complaint No. 25/2016
3. Complaint No. 26/2016
4. Complaint No. 27/2016

 

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

                        2) Smt. Sunita,                          Member

-***-

Complainant/s:

                             Sri.Milind Anand Angolkar,

                             Age: 45 years, Occ: Service,

                             R/o: H.No.183, Bhendwad Galli,

Hosur, Belagavi

                                                C.C. No.24/16

 

Sou.Manasi Milind Angolkar,

                             Age: 34 years, Occ: House wife,

                             R/o: H.No.183, Bhendwad Galli,

Hosur, Belagavi

                                                C.C. No.25/16

 

Smt.Sushmita Anand Angolkar,

                             Age: 65 years, Occ: House wife,

                             R/o: H.No.183, Bhendwad Galli,

Hosur, Belagavi

                                                C.C. No.26/16

 

Master Ashutosh Milind Angolkar,

                             A minor R/by his natural guardian father,

                             Sri.Milind Anand Angolkar,

                             Age: 45 years, Occ: Service,

                             R/o: H.No.183, Bhendwad Galli,

Hosur, Belagavi

                             C.C. No.27/16

 

                             (By Sri. D.H.Choudhari, Adv.)

 

                                                          V/s.

 

 

Opponent/s:      

                   1)      The Chairman,

                             Shree Aashraya Souhard Credit Society Ltd.,

                             1^st floor, Arjun Sankal, Dane Galli,

                             Shahapur, Belagavi.

         

                   2)      The Manager,

                             Shree Aashraya Souhard Credit Society Ltd.,

                             1^st floor, Arjun Sankal, Dane Galli,

                             Shahapur, Belagavi.

 

                             (OP.1 and 2 by Sri.S.R.Sakri, Adv.)

 

 

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

 

 

COMMON ORDER

            I. Though the complainants are different, their grievances, allegations and the facts pleaded are same except the details of the deposits by the complainants.  In all the cases the opponents are same, as shown in the cause title. 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 his deposits being different, for brevity and also for clarity and to avoid confusion, names of the parties of the particular case only will be shown in the cause title and the details of the deposits will be shown separately in the table.

          1) The relevant facts of the cases are that the complainants have filed these complaints u/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 against the O.Ps. alleging deficiency in banking service of non refund of the matured fixed deposits amount.

          2) Upon service of notice O.Ps. 1 and 2 appeared through their counsel and filed written version, affidavit, written arguments and produced some documents.

          3) In support of the claim in the complaints, complainants  have filed affidavits and original F.D.Rs. are produced by the complainants.   

          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 the perusal contents of the complaint/s and affidavit filed by the complainants, the complainants have deposited their amount in OP souhard as detailed below:

 

Sl. No.	Complaint No.	F.D.R. No.	Date of Deposits	Amount Deposited	Due / maturity Date	Maturity Amount/ claimed
1	2	3	4	5	6	7
1	24/16	708/32	16.12.10	10,000	16.06.16	20,000
2		709/32	16.12.10	10,000	16.06.16	20,000
3		710/32	16.12.10	5,000	16.06.16	10,000
1	25/16	841/38	09.07.11	50,000	09.10.12	57,264
1	26/16	705/32	16.12.10	10,000	16.06.16	20,000
2		706/32	16.12.10	10,000	16.06.16	20,000
3		707/32	16.12.10	5,000	16.06.16	10,000
1	27/16	840/38	09.07.11	50,000	09.10.12	57,264

         

8)  After maturity of said F.D.Rs. the complainants approached the office of the opponents and requested the opponents to refund the matured F.D.R/s amount, inspite of that opponent went on postponing the same by assigning one or other reasons. Lastly fed up with the behavior of OPs the complainant/s issued legal notice to OPs on 21.12.2015, but the OPs have not complied the same notice. Hence opponents committed deficiency in service as contemplated under the provision of the consumer protection act 1986.

9) The OPs.1 and 2 have filed objections to the complaints denying and disputing the complaints averments and further contended that the FDRs are pre matured and not tenable as also the complainant/s are the members of the society. The complainant/s had furnished the specimen signatures at the time of opening the accounts, which do not tally with one signed by complainant/s in the complaints. The OPs further contended that due to misappropriations by the General Manager & Branch Manager of Narvekar Galli Branch there had been strict guidelines for assessing the claims and signatures being mismatch the claims are scrutinized and there is no deficiency of service for calling of the details pertaining to the KYC norms. Hence there is no deficiency of service on the part of OPs and pray for dismissal of the complaints.

10)    On perusal of objections of the OPs, the OPs have taken contention that the complainant/s had furnished the specimen signatures at the time of opening the accounts, which do not tally with one signed by complainant/s in the complaints. On the one hand the OPs admit the FDRs issued by them, but to prove their contention OPs have not produced any evidence or any application before the forum to refer the disputed signatures for verification.

11)    On perusal evidence affidavit of the complainants, the complainants produced original FD Receipts, they are in the names of complainants. It is well settled legal position that non payment of the amount deposited, amounts to deficiency in service.

12)    The OPs have taken contention regarding non submission of KYC documents by the complainants to the OP Society. The OPs are at liberty to release the respective amount of complainants after receiving KYC documents from complainants.

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. has been proved.

          14) Accordingly, the following

ORDER

          The complaint/s are partly allowed.

          The Opponents.1 and 2 as shown in the cause title are hereby jointly and severally directed and liable to pay the complainants as order below;

Sl. No.	Complaint No.	F.D.R. No.	Date of Deposits	Amount Deposited	Due / maturity Date	Maturity Amount/ claimed
1	2	3	4	5	6	7
1	24/16	708/32	16.12.10	10,000	16.06.16	20,000
2		709/32	16.12.10	10,000	16.06.16	20,000
3		710/32	16.12.10	5,000	16.06.16	10,000
1	25/16	841/38	09.07.11	50,000	09.10.12	57,264
1	26/16	705/32	16.12.10	10,000	16.06.16	20,000
2		706/32	16.12.10	10,000	16.06.16	20,000
3		707/32	16.12.10	5,000	16.06.16	10,000
1	27/16	840/38	09.07.11	50,000	09.10.12	57,264

 

The matured F.D.Rs. amounts mentioned in column No.7 with future interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of maturity, as mentioned in column No.6 till realization of the entire amount.

 The Opponents.1 and 2 as shown in the cause title are hereby jointly and severally directed and liable to pay the complainants a sum of Rs.3,000/- in each case towards cost of the proceedings.

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

The original order shall be kept in complaint No.24/2016 and the true copy in other clubbed cases.

 

          (Order dictated, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on this 30 June 2017)

                            

 

 

 

MSR