Karnataka

Belgaum

CC/513/2015

Tanvi J Shinde - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

S M Gavade

30 Nov 2016

ORDER

                

ADDITIONAL  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BELAGAVI

C.C.No.513/2015

                     Date of filing: 14/10/2015

                                                                  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   -

Kum. Tanvi Jaydeep[ Shinde, Age: 8 Years, Occ: Education, Rep. by her Minor Guardian Shri. Rajendra Shivaji Shinde, Age: 68 Years, Occ: Pensioner, R/o: H.No.395/B1, Karbhar Galli/ Backside Patil Galli, Vadagaon, Belagavi.                     (Rep. by Sri. S.M.Gavade, Adv.)

 

- V/S -

 

OPPOSITE PARTY  -

The Chairman, Shree Aashraya Souharda Credit Society Ltd., Ashraya Empire, Tilakwadi, Belagavi.                      (Rep. by Sri. S.R. Sakri, Adv.

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 Party (in short the “Op”) directed to pay F.D. amount of Rs.1,75,000/- with interest @12.25% p.a. from 26^th July-2011 till realization as pre-maturity withdrawals and compensation of Rs.50,000/- towards Mental agony & Rs.10,000/- towards costs.

 

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

 

          It is contended that, the complainant is not member of Opponent and as a customer of the Opponent and had made deposit in the name of his granddaughter for her educational needs under FDR A/c No.1809/32 on 27^th July 2011 deposited Rs.1,75,000/- for a period of 69 months with agreed rate of interests @12.25% p.a. to mature on 26^th April 2017 as Rs.3,50,000/-. The complainant is seriously and is in being in dire need of finance and approached chairman of the said society i.e. opponent for pre-maturity withdrawal of deposits, but there were no officials to receive application and make payments. It was also learnt that, the main Branch is being shifted at Tilakwadi, Belagavi and the premises is vacated and the complainant is in panic.

 

          It is further contended that, the non-disbursement of pre-maturity claims on demand for medical needs is serious deficiency and the opponent is not making disbursement. The complainant has suffered mental agony. The complainant is ready to take amounts as per policies of society for pre-maturity withdrawals of deposits. Hence, complainant has constrained to file this complaint.   

 

3.      After issue of notice to the Opponent, the opponent has appeared through his Counsel and resisted the claim of the complainant by filing his written version to the main petition contending that, the contents of complaint are fabricated and

there is no details provided regarding alleged deficiency, there is no deficiency in service on part of opponent as the claim is pre-mature. The complainant has suo-moto calculated the amounts as per assumptions. Further the complainant has failed to comply mandatory KYC compliance prior to putting claims for pre-withdrawal and has also not expressed willingness to abide by the terms of the Pre-Maturity withdrawal Rules i.e. agreeing to receive interest @3% less of the agree rated of interest and /or 6% of the simple interest from the date of deposits, whichever is higher. These facts are within the knowledge of complainant being member.

 

 

Further it is contended that, the contents of paragraph regarding complainant approaching the opponent is created concocted, if the complainant had approached the society, when, where, how and what were replies are to be proved and simple filing complaint shall not be suffice to establish deficiency of service on the part of opponent. The opponent fairly submits that, individuals who are K.Y.C. complaints and retained deposits with Sahakari, are provided with matured amounts, if K.Y.C. norms are not complied to and complainant’s name is not established as depositor and if amount are not properly established sahakari has refused payments and had submitted fairly to provide details regarding deposits and receive amounts.  

 

It is contended that, the complainant being member is aware of misappropriation of funds by General Manager and Branch Manager of Narvekar Galli, Branch and Department of Co-operation has already completed the statutory enquiry U/s. 35 of the Karnataka Souharda Sahakari Act, confirming misappropriations including that of issuing bogus F.D. receipts and now forcing such receipts to be encashed and it becomes more a necessity to seek information of Know Your Customer norms for status as depositor and furnish details regarding PAN, crossed cheque and details of remittance through cheque/DD/transfer/Cash and narration in the balance sheet to concur regarding deposits. 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 only one document which is F.D. receipt and same is marked as Ex.P-1. On the contrary the opponent has not produced any document. We have taken as heard the argument of complainant side and opponent has 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 OP for not settling the payment of F.D. amount?

 

2. Whether the complainant is 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 Opponent and as a customer of the Opponent and deposited the amounts to her granddaughter for educational needs under FDR A/c No.1809/32 on 27.07.2011 for a period of 69 months @12.25% p.a. an amount of Rs.1,75,000/- and maturity date as 26.04.2016 and the maturity Value is Rs.3,50,000/-. The F.D.R. is standing in the name of her granddaughter. On perusal evidence affidavit of the complainant, the claim of the complainant are pre-mature and there is no any bar pre-mature the said F.D., even though the complainant requested the OP to make payment and that, inspite of the demands made by the complainant the amount remained unpaid and not settle by the OP, the said contention has to be believed and accepted and it has force in the contention. It is well settled legal position that nonpayment of the deposited amount by the complainant, its amounts to deficiency in service.

Now, coming to the contention stated in the written version of the OP, 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 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 F.D.R. Therefore, the question remains is that whether the complainant can claim pre-mature claim under F.D.R has to be seen? As per the contention taken by the Opponent, the complainant 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 F.D. amount, the Opponent has not filed any document in this regard and the OP has not established the case with cogent and believable material document 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. amount deposit is not been denied by the Opponent except the contents taken in the objection, as to KYC norms and interest. Therefore, in our view that the nonpayment of F.D. amount by the opponent and demanding immaterial documents which is not mentioned in F.D. receipt 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. amount 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 opponent. Hence, we answer to the Point No.1 in Affirmative.

 

7.      Point No.2 : It is a duty of the Opponent 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 OP to disburse or settle the deposit F.D. amount by giving the make good payment which has fixed the amount by the complainant in Op society, but the OP nonpayment of F.D. receipt amount and one or the other reason dragging and alleging untenable contention is amounts to deficiency of service on the part of OP. Hence, due to nonpayment F.D. pre-maturity amount by the OP is caused mental agony and harassment to the complainant. However, the complainant has approached the OP society for payment of F.D. amount which was necessary for his future expenses, emergent needs and his financial crises. Hence, in our considered opinion that, the complainant is entitle to 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.P. is hereby directed to pay the deposited an amount of Rs.1,75,000/- in respect of F.D.R. bearing A/c. No. 1809/32 to the complainant with interest at the rate of 8.7% P.A. from 27/07/2011 till realization.

 

Further, the O.P. is 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 is entitle to recover Addition 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.