Karnataka

Belgaum

CC/119/2015

Seema M Shirodkar - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Prashant P Samaji

31 Jul 2017

ORDER

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”) directing them to return the F.Ds. amount of Rs.1,00,000/- together with interest @ 13.20% p.a. from the date of deposit till realization and compensation of Rs.20,000/- towards the damages and any other reliefs deemed fit under the circumstances of the case.

 

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

 

The case of the complainant that, the complainant and her husband Shri.Shirodkar Manjunath Shankar have made deposits of their hard earned savings with Ops society. The details of amounts deposited as shown below:-

 

Sl. No	A/c No.	Date of Dept.	Deposit Amount	R.O.I	Maturity Date
01	168	27.04.10	50,000/-	13.20%	27.04.14
02	169	27.04.10	50,000/-	13.20%	27.04.14

 

It is further complainant contended that, the above said fixed deposit amounts are kept with Op.No.3 in ‘Masik Vetan Yojana Scheme’ and mode of operation as payable to either or survivor and further the complainant contended that, she is in need of the money to meet her pressing family and she has requested the OPs to refund the above said matured F.Ds. amount, but even after maturity of the said period, the OPs avoided to make payments by giving one or the other reasons, without valid reason. Inspite of repeated requests, the OPs failed to refund the matured F.Ds. amount and it is obligatory on the part of the OPs to refund the above said F.Ds. amount to the complainant and thereby OPs committed the deficiency of service as contemplated under the provision of C.P. Act 1986.

 

          It is also further complainant contended that, due to persistent refusal of the OP.No.3 to refund the FDs amount, the complainant has approached and requested to the Ops, but Ops could not heed the request of the complainant. Finally the complainant has got issued legal notice to the OPs through her Counsel on dtd: 30.01.2015 and notice was duly served to the OPs. But, the OPs have neither replied nor complied with said notice. However, the OPs refused to return the fixed deposited amounts by giving one or other reasons, 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 and resisted the claim of the complainant by filing his written version and Op.No.3 has filed memo stating that, the written version of Op.No.1 adopt the same and the Op.No.2 has neither appeared nor filed any version before this Forum. The Hon’ble Forum consider the OP.No.2 is placed
Ex-parte.

 

The OP.No.1 & 3 contended in the written version and denied the deficiency in service and contend that, there is no cause of action and further admitted that, the remittance of the deposits and interest are already credited to the savings deposit account and further contended that, the complainant has never approached the Souharda Sahakari with the maturity claims 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 in the complaint and therefore, the OP.No.1 & 3 prayed to dismiss the complaint.

 

 4)      Both the parties have filed their affidavits in lieu of evidence in support of their case. The complainant has produced 04 documents i.e. Original F.D. receipts, Office copy of legal notice, Postal receipts and Acknowledgements, for sake of our convenience we have as Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-4. On the contrary the OPs have not produced any documents. Heard the argument on both sides.

 

 

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

 

 

1.Whether the complainants have prove that there is deficiency in service on the part of the OPs for not settling/refunding the F.Ds. amount?

 

2.What order?

 

6)       Our finding on the points are as follows;

 

1.       Affirmative.

          2.       As per final Order.

R E A S O N S

 

7)       Point No.1: On the perusal contents of the complaint and affidavit filed by the complainant, the complainant has stated that, for the future maintenance, the complainant has deposited the amount in the OPs Souhard Credit Society in the form of fixed deposits in Masik Vetan Yojane. The fixed deposits made by the complainant as below:

 

Sl. No	A/c No.	Date of Dept.	Deposit Amount	R.O.I	Maturity Date
01	168	27.04.10	50,000/-	13.20%	27.04.14
02	169	27.04.10	50,000/-	13.20%	27.04.14

 

8)       Grievance of the complainant is that, after the maturity of F.Ds. amount and inspite of the demands made, the maturity value remained unpaid. The complainant contended that, she has requested to the OPs return/refund the above said F.D. amounts alongwith the maturity value. But, the Ops are postponing the same by assigning one or other reasons, without valid reasons. The complainant further contended that, it is obligatory on the part of OPs to refund the above said maturity F.Ds. amount, but Ops are failed to refund the same and thereby OPs have committed the deficiency of service as contemplated under the provision of C.P. Act 1986.

 

9)       The OP.No.1 & 3 contended in the written version and denied the deficiency in service and contend that, there is no cause of action and further admitted that, the remittance of the deposits and interest are already credited to the savings deposit account and further contended that, the complainant has never approached the Souharda Sahakari with the maturity claims 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 and prayed to dismiss the complaint. In order to establish this contention, the OP.No.1 & 3 have not filed supporting affidavit evidence and not furnished any material document to show that, the same credited amount has been withdrawn by the complainant.  Therefore, in our consider view that, the OP.NO.1 & 3 have failed to establish as alleged in the written version.

 

10)     The complainant has established her case in respect of deficiency of service on the part of the OPs by filing the supporting affidavit evidence and material documents i.e. the original F.D. receipts is on record, the said documents have been marked as Ex.P-1 (total 2 FD receipts), for sake of our convenience. These facts pleaded in the complaint and stated by the complainant is not disputed or denied by the OPs. Hence, the said matured F.Ds. amount payable to the complainant by the OPs bank is proved.

 

11)     No-doubt it is true that, the conduct of OPs in not paying the matured amount, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Hence, in our consider view, the complainant has established the case as alleged in the complaint. Therefore, the OPs are directed to pay the respective F.Ds. amount i.e. Masik Vetan Yojana as per F.D receipts and further as per contention of the Ops, if there is any amount credit to the complainant account and the said credited amount has not been withdrawn, the complainant is entitled to withdraw the same amount, if the Ops have not credited the interest as per agreed rate of interest of Masik Vetan Yojana to the complainant as alleged by the OPs, the Ops have to pay interest from the date of deposit till maturity. However, the complainant is also entitled to recover the interest
@ 6 % p.a. on the respective matured F.Ds. amount from the date of maturity till realization. It would be just and proper to award a compensation of Rs.2,000/- for inconvenience and mental agony and we also award towards litigation expenses of Rs.1,000/-. Accordingly, we answer to the above point No 1 in affirmative.  Hence, we proceed to pass the following.

 

 O R D E R

 

For the reason discuss above, the complaint filed by the complainant U/s 12 of the C.P. Act – 1986 is here by partly allowed with costs.

          The OPs jointly and severally are hereby directed to pay the respective F.Ds. amount i.e. Masik Vetan Yojana as per F.D. receipts to the complainant, if the Ops have not credited the interest as per agreed rate of interest to the complainant, the Ops shall to pay interest from the date of deposit till maturity and further the complainant is also entitled to recover the interest
@ 6 % p.a. on the respective matured F.Ds. amount from the date of maturity till realization.

          Further, the OPs are jointly and severally are directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.1,000/- towards cost of the proceedings to the complainant.

          The order shall be complied within 10 weeks from the date of this order. If the order is not complied within 10 weeks from the date of this order, the complainant is entitled to recover with Additional interest @ 2 % p.a. from the date of complaint i.e. 25.02.2015 till its realization.

 

           (Order dictated, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on: 31^st day of July 2017).

 

   

 

Sri. A.G.Maldar,     President.

Smt. J.S. Kajagar,    Lady Member.