Karnataka

Belgaum

CC/243/2015

Sidray A Shahapurkar - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Prashant P Samaji

30 Nov 2016

ORDER

                

ADDITIONAL  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BELAGAVI

C.C.No.243/2015

                     Date of filing: 12/05/2015

                                                                  Date of disposal:30/11/2016

 

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. Sidray Appayya Shahapurkar, Age: 75 Years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o: Jyotirling Galli, Kanbargi, Tq: and Dist. Belagavi.                        (Rep. by Sri. P.P.Samaji, Adv.)

- V/S -

 

OPPOSITE PARTIES  -

1.       2.                               3.

The Chairman, Shree Aashraya Souharda Credit Society Ltd., Off. At:760, Kalmath Road, Belagavi.   The Branch Manager, Narvekar Galli Branch, Shree Aashraya Souharda Credit Society Ltd., Off. At: Narvekar Galli, Belagavi.                             (Rep. by Sri. S.R. Sakri, Adv.                                              for Op.No.1 & 2)   The Branch Manager, Main Branch, Shree Aashraya Souhard Credit Society Ltd., Off. At:760, Kalmath Road, Belgaum.                                       (Ex-parte)

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 F.Ds. amount of Rs.3,29,000/- being total FDs amount with interest @13% p.a. from date of deposit of FDs till realization and Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for Mental agony alongwith costs.

 

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

 

          It is contended that, the complainant is the customer of the Opponents society and out of his hard earned savings had kept fixed deposits with Ops society. The said FDs with opponents society are enumerated below;

 

Sl.No.	A/c No.	Date of Deposit	Amount in Rs.	Interest Rate	Maturity Date	Maturity Amount
01	64	27.10.08	14,000/-	11.40%	27.10.15	28,000/-
02	65	27.10.08	10,000/-	11.40%	27.10.15	20,000/-
03	66	28.10.09	6,000/-	11.40%	28.10.15	12,000/-
04	68	10.11.09	15,000/-	11.40%	10.11.15	30,000/-
05	70	27.11.09	5,000/-	11.40%	27.11.15	10,000/-
06	71	03.12.09	5,000/-	11.40%	03.12.15	10,000/-
07	526/32	06.01.11	10,000/-	12.80%	06.07.16	20,000/-
08	524/32	06.01.11	25,000/-	12.80%	06.07.16	50,000/-
09	525/32	06.01.11	25,000/-	12.80%	06.07.16	50,000/-
10	343/32	03.12.10	25,000/-	12.80%	04.06.16	50,000/-
11	325/32	30.11.10	11,000/-	10.50%	30.05.16	22,000/-
12	332/32	03.12.10	25,000/-	12.80%	03.06.16	50,000/-
13	333/32	03.12.10	25,000/-	12.80%	03.06.16	50,000/-
14	334/32	03.12.10	25,000/-	12.80%	03.06.16	50,000/-
15	928/32	16.07.11	11,000/-	10.50%	16.07.17	22,000/-
16	898/32	16.07.11	11,000/-	12.80%	16.01.17	22,000/-
17	335/32	03.12.10	25,000/-	12.80%	03.06.16	50,000/-
18	336/32	03.12.10	25,000/-	12.80%	03.06.16	50,000/-
19	662/32	03.12.11	5,000/-	12.50%	03.08.16	10,000/-
20	566/32	17.01.11	5,000/-	12.80%	17.07.16	10,000/-
21	304/32	22.11.10	10,000/-	10.50%	22.05.16	20,000/-
22	324/32	30.11.10	11,000/-	10.50%	30.05.16	22,000/-
23	1842/32	28.10.11	26,000/-	12.20%	28.07.17	52,000/-

 

the above said fixed deposits were kept with Opponent No.2 and Serial No.23 is kept with Opponent No.3 and the complainant has approached the opponents’ society for
pre-maturity withdrawal of above said fixed deposits, but opponents have not paid the amount and thereby avoided to make the payments by giving one or the other reasons. The complainant has to meet urgent expenses of his family i.e. Medical Expenses and other family needs, but opponents have withheld the said amount illegally, the complainant is not able to utilize the same for the purpose which they said amount is saved.

 

          It is contended that, due to persistent refusal of the opponents to repay the FDs amount, the complainant got issued legal notices to the OPs through his Counsel dtd:27.02.2015 and notices were duly served to the opponents. But, the opponents have neither replied nor complied with the said notices. However, the opponents 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 opponent No.1 has appeared through his Counsel and resisted the claim of the complainant by filing his written version and Op.No.2 adopt the same by filing the memo. The opponent No.3 has neither appeared nor filed any version before this Forum. The Opponent No.3 has no interest to proceed with the case inspite of giving sufficient time. The Hon’ble District Forum considered the opponent No.3 is Ex-parte. Wherein the Ops society have totally denied the allegations made by the complainant against them contending that, the contents of complaint are fabricated and facts narrated are perverse to bring within the jurisdiction of the Hon’ble Court without there being any deficiency of service on the part of the opponents and there are no details provided in regards to allegations and there is no deficiency in service on part of opponents as the claim is pre-mature withdrawals. The Opponents further contended that, the complainant did not approach the sahakari after maturity of the deposits and it seems has directly approached this forum for claims alleging deficiency in services. The complainant is a member of the Sahakari and he cannot retain a complaint being the member of the Sahakari. This point be treated as a preliminary issue. The Deposits Claims are Pre-matured and that, as per the policies of the society, there shall be deduction of 3% from the agreed rates of interests from the dates of deposits for pre-maturity withdrawals. The society recognizes only the signature of the depositor and the deposits post maturity are not entitled to receive any interests, Unless they are either renewed and/or put up for withdrawal through discharge. It is fact that, the society had already written a letter for furnish the details of KYC (Know Your Customer) norms for receipt of the deposits and interest and was also called upon to provide his details as the same were liable for deduction of taxes regarding deposits. The Complaint has failed to provide such details in the complaint. Further, there is no deficiency in service as the complaint is pre-mature and complaint be dismissed with heavy costs.

 

4.      Both the parties have filed their affidavits in lieu of evidence in support of their case. The complainant has produced 05 documents, same are marked as Ex.P-1 to
Ex.P-5. On the contrary, the opponents have not produced any documents. Both side advocates have filed their written arguments and oral argument of complainant taken as heard and opponents have argue the matter. 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 settling the payment of F.D. amount?

 

2. Whether the complainants are entitled for the   

 relief as is sought for?

 

3.  What order?

 

5.      Answer to the above Points:-

 

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 is not member of Opponents and as a customer of the Opponents Society and complainant has deposited the amounts to secure his future and FDs were kept in his name with the opponents society are enumerated below;

 

Sl.No.	A/c No.	Date of Deposit	Amount in Rs.	Interest Rate	Maturity Date	Maturity Amount
01	64	27.10.08	14,000/-	11.40%	27.10.15	28,000/-
02	65	27.10.08	10,000/-	11.40%	27.10.15	20,000/-
03	66	28.10.09	6,000/-	11.40%	28.10.15	12,000/-
04	68	10.11.09	15,000/-	11.40%	10.11.15	30,000/-
05	70	27.11.09	5,000/-	11.40%	27.11.15	10,000/-
06	71	03.12.09	5,000/-	11.40%	03.12.15	10,000/-
07	526/32	06.01.11	10,000/-	12.80%	06.07.16	20,000/-
08	524/32	06.01.11	25,000/-	12.80%	06.07.16	50,000/-
09	525/32	06.01.11	25,000/-	12.80%	06.07.16	50,000/-
10	343/32	03.12.10	25,000/-	12.80%	04.06.16	50,000/-
11	325/32	30.11.10	11,000/-	10.50%	30.05.16	22,000/-
12	332/32	03.12.10	25,000/-	12.80%	03.06.16	50,000/-
13	333/32	03.12.10	25,000/-	12.80%	03.06.16	50,000/-
14	334/32	03.12.10	25,000/-	12.80%	03.06.16	50,000/-
15	928/32	16.07.11	11,000/-	10.50%	16.07.17	22,000/-
16	898/32	16.07.11	11,000/-	12.80%	16.01.17	22,000/-
17	335/32	03.12.10	25,000/-	12.80%	03.06.16	50,000/-
18	336/32	03.12.10	25,000/-	12.80%	03.06.16	50,000/-
19	662/32	03.12.11	5,000/-	12.50%	03.08.16	10,000/-
20	566/32	17.01.11	5,000/-	12.80%	17.07.16	10,000/-
21	304/32	22.11.10	10,000/-	10.50%	22.05.16	20,000/-
22	324/32	30.11.10	11,000/-	10.50%	30.05.16	22,000/-
23	1842/32	28.10.11	26,000/-	12.20%	28.07.17	52,000/-

 

 The FDs were standing in the name of complainant and complainant is an old aged person. On perusal evidence affidavit of the complainant, the claim of the complainants are premature, and there is no any bar to pre-mature the said F.D., even though the complainants requested to the OPs to make payment and that, inspite of the demands made by the complainant, the amount remained unpaid and not settled by the OPs, the said contentions has to be believed and accepted and it has forced to the contentions. It is well settled legal position that, nonpayment of the fixed deposited amounts made by the complainant, it  amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opponents.

 

Now, coming to the contentions stated in the written version of the OPs, the main contention of the Opponents is that the complainant has not approached to the Sahakari and not furnished the KYC norms as required under law and one more contention is that, as the claim is pre-mature the complainant is not entitle for the interest as agreed on the cost of repetition. Looking to the allegation of the complainant and claiming pre-mature FDs. Therefore, the question remains is that whether the complainant can claim pre-mature claim under FDs has to be seen? As per the contention taken by the Opponents, the complaint is not maintainable as the claim is pre-mature, cannot be believed and accepted, because to show that the complainant is not entitle for the pre-mature FDs amounts, the Opponents have not filed any document in this regard and the OPs have not established the case with cogent and believable materials documents to hold that, the said complaint is not maintainable. Hence, mere contending in the objection does not suffice the same and said contention cannot be accepted and credible. According to the guide lines of RBI, the person one who is claiming the pre-mature F.D.R amount is entitle for 3% less than the agreed rate of interest on F.D. amount.

 

 Moreover, the F.D.R deposit is not been denied by the Opponents except the contents taken in the objection, as to KYC norms and interest. Therefore, in our view that the nonpayment of F.D. amounts by the opponents and demanding immaterial documents which is not mentioned in F.D. receipts and even in accordance with R.B.I. Guidelines the F.D. holder has right to withdrawal by way of moving an application towards pre-maturity of F.D. amounts which is guaranteed by the R.B.I. despite the opponent or not making payment to the F.D. holders are amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opponents. 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 amounts as per policies of society for pre-maturity withdrawals of deposits a mandatory duty on the part of OPs to disburse or settle the deposited F.D. amounts by giving the make good payment which has fixed the amounts by the complainant in Ops society, but the OPs nonpayment of FDs receipt amounts and one or the other reason dragging and alleging untenable contention is amounts to deficiency of service on the part of OPs. Hence, due to nonpayment FDs pre-maturity amount by the OPs is caused mental agony and harassment to the complainant. However, the complainant has approached the OPs society for payment of FDs amount which was necessary for his future expenses, emergent and medical needs and his financial crises.  Hence, in our considered opinion that, the complainant is entitled the F.D. amount with interest @8.7% p.a. and also entitled Rs.3,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.1,000/- towards cost of litigation 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;

           

: 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 O.Ps. are hereby directed to pay the fixed deposited an amounts of Rs.3,29,000/-  in respect of FD receipts bearing Account numbers (as shown in the complaint
para no.2) to the complainant with interest @ 8.7% P.A. from the date of Deposit of F.D. amount till realization.

 

Further, the O.Ps. are hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/-  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 are entitle to recover the Additional interest @1.3% 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 30^th day of November, 2016).

 

Sri. A.G.Maldar,     President.

Smt. J.S. Kajagar,    Lady Member.