BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER

       DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BAGALKOT.

COMPLAINT NO. 38/2018
DATE Of FILING: 06/03/2018

Date: 27^th day of July, 2018

   P r e  s e n t: 

01) Smt.Sharada.K.                                                    President…

     B.A.LL.B. (Spl) 

02) Smt. Sumangala.C.Hadli.                         Lady   Member…

                            B.A (Music)

                V/s.

JUDGEMENT DELIVERED BY SMT.SHARADA.K.PRESIDENT

The complainant has filed this Complaint u/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Opposite Parties (herein after referred in short as OPs) seeking direction to OPs to directing to pay an F.D. amount of Rs.1,44,000/- along with interest, Rs.1,00,000/- towards mental agony and harassment caused to complainant and any other relief as the Forum deems fit under the circumstances of the case.

2.    The brief fact of the case are as follows:

The O.Ps. have offered an attractive rate of interest on Fixed Deposits to its customer. The complainant on being attracted on the said offer of the rate of interest with the bonafide desire to get more interest on his deposits amount, had deposited his hard earned money with the  O.P. Complainant deposited following deposits shown below:

The complainant total deposited 4 F.D.s. Complainant approached to Ops to refund the fixed deposit but his efforts turned in vain. In the regard, complainant issued legal notice whereas, the Ops did not respond to it. Because to laxity on the part of the Ops, complainant was put to mental agony and harassment. Thereafter, he has sought Rs.1,00,000/- towards  loss, harassment and mental agony etc., Ops did not respond to the legal notice issued by the complainant, complainant has no other option except to file the present complaint.

3.      After receipt of notice, the OPs-Counsel present before the Forum and filed objection.

           Written Version of OPs is as hereunder:

4.      O.Ps. deny all the averments made in the complaint. The present complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious against the society and its office bearers. Further, O.P. contended that the complaint against the Chairman and Manager of society/O.Ps. are not maintainable as it is a corporate body having common seal under Section 9 of Kar Co Op Societies Act and Rules and only present C E O of society is proper party to opposite parties who is not made party by the complaint. Contents of the complaint para No.2 is denied by the O.P. The O.Ps. further submits that when para No.2, 3, 4 & 7 speaks about commercial of complaint against the society O.P. about attractive rate of interest offered by society to complainant and he kept 4 fixed deposits receipts at serial No.1 to 4 to the extend of Rs.1,44,000/- on 03/05/2017, 16/07/2017 and 18/07/2017 in order to get higher interest thereon deposits and F.D.Rs. are matured and he demanded from society.

O.P. further contended that all these above allegations made by the complainant in his complaint purely commercial transactions of fixed depositors who is not a consumer U/s. 2 (d) definition of C P Act. Hence this Hon’ble Forum has no jurisdiction to try this case. Hence, Ops pray to dismiss the complaint with heavy costs in the interest of justice and equity.

5.     The complainant has produced documents. The said documents are as follows:

1. Original F.D.Rs./Manjunath Cash Certificates (4 in Nos.) by its Sl.No.459, 476, 477 and 478 dated: 3/05/2011, 16/05/2011, 18/07/2016 and 18/07/2011.

2. Office copy of Legal Notice issued to Ops,

3. Two Postal Receipts and Acknowledgements,

6.      By way of evidence, complainant has filed affidavit and filed documents in support of his case. On the other hand, OP has filed affidavit and objection alongwith documents. Heard the arguments and perused the documents.

7.      After considering the material placed on record, the following points that would arise for our consideration.

1. Whether the complainant made-out the case to allow the complaint?
2. What order?

8.    After considering the evidence tendered by both sides and on careful consideration of the arguments advanced by both sides, our findings for the above points are as follows:-

1. Partly in the Affirmative,

2) As per final order.

R E A S O N S

9. POINT NO.1 : To substantiate the claim complainant tendered following documents copies of F.Ds. receipts, zerox copy of postal receipt office copy of the legal notice, whereas the direction was to O.P. to return the amount. Inspite of all these facts O.Ps. failed to release the amount. On perusal of the fixed deposit certificate it is shows that Rs.72,000/- is deposited on that O.P. shall have to make payment of Rs.1,44,000/- after maturity i.e., after six years. Now, the complainant was in need of money he has approached O.P. to released the amount. But O.P. did not release the same.  The complainant has issued legal notice through counsel on 21/02/2018 by registered post to respondents which was served on 22/02/2018.  So under the attending circumstances considering all these factors O.Ps. shall have to return the maturity amount Rs.1,44,000/- which was deposited under four F.D’s  refer to supra.

10.    After though, the O.Ps. made futile attempt to deny all the allegations in the complaint. Further, the O.Ps. society represented by the Secretary, Shri Manjunath Urban Co. Op. society Ltd., Terdal in the affidavit has admitted that complainant never come to society and complainant never presented F D Rs. to society and complainant sent his son in law to society who came to society and he asked his F.D.Rs. amount, society/O.Ps. told to complainant son in law to give bank account number along with said F.D.Rs. so as to enable to society make payment through bank as there is a ban of cash transaction of huge amount after note ban in country under tax laws. O.Ps. submit that son in law of the complainant who did not come again and give bank particulars of his father in law along with F D Rs to the society/O.Ps. etc.,

11. Taking into consideration various aspects and the decision of Hon’ble Commission.

I) III (2011) CPJ 175 (NC)

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi. Bhagwanji D. Patel  & Anr. V/s. Indian Bank & Ors. .

ii) Consumer Protection Act, 1986- Sections 2(1)(d), 2(1)(e)-Banking and Financial Institution Services-Deposits-Consumer-Commercial purpose-Consumer-Commercial purpose-Consumer dispute-Complainant invested money in foreign currencies Non Resident Bank account-Contention, complainants are not consumers and availed services of bank for commercial purposes-Not accepted-Money invested by complainants cannot said to be a commercial venture – Where an individual simply makes a deposit of certain amount in a deposit of certain amount in a bank in some term deposit scheme, by doing so, he cannot be said to have indulged in a commercial activity-Any investment in such a scheme would certainly earn interest which cannot amount to profit earning…

II) IV (2011) CPJ 251 (NC)

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission New Delhi. Kakaustam Raghunathan S/o Lakshmi Kantham V/s. Polasani Rama Devi.

11. On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant/Respondents has submitted that all the deposits covered by the two revision petitions, were made by the respective complainants with the firm of O Ps in the year 1997 when the petitioner was also a Director in the O.P. firm. He further submitted that as per the record, the Petitioner resigned on 3.8.1998 but his resignation came to be submitted to the Registrar office on 22.10.1999 by the OP firm but the important aspect according to counsel for the Respondents was that when the deposits were made by the Respondents, the Petitioner was on the Board of Directors and hence cannot deposit certificate. It was also argued by learned Counsel that mere denial of responsibility cannot absolve the petitioner from joint and several liability along with other O.Ps. He further submitted that the Petitioner has been changing his defence from time to time just to escape his liability in the matter in as much as he denied existence of the OP firm by submitting that no such firm was ever established by the O Ps but later he has taken the plea of having resigned as a Director from that firm on 3.8.1998.  Since admittedly he was the Director when the fixed deposits were made with the firm for which the fixed deposit certificates duly signed by him and other O.Ps. were issued, he shall be liable for the maturity amounts and cannot escape the liability to pay back.  He submitted that both the for a below have looked into all the relevant aspects carefully based on the documents and other evidence adduced by the parties and hence there is no scope for any interfence in the impugned order based on the concurrent finding of facts.

12. Having heard the submissions of learned counsels….The revision petitions being devoid of merit are liable to be dismissed. They are dismissed accordingly with no order as to cost.

III) II (2015)  CPJ 250 (NC)

National Consumer Disputes Redresal Commission

Revision Petition Nos. 3733 to 3741 of 2013

M.L.Sehgal Vs. Shalu Chandna and Ors.

The District Forum granted relief to the complainants against the O.P. Nos.1, 2 and 4 and passed the following order;

“1. To pay the respective malturity amount of each FDR to the complainants with future interest @ 8 p.a., from the date of respective maturity of each FDR till actual realization.

2. Also to pay Rs.2,000/- as costs of litigation in each complaint.

16. The revision petitions are dismissed with costs of Rs.25,000/- in each of the nine cases, which be paid to each of the complainants/consumers, by the petitioner, in equal proportion, through demand drafts, directly, drawn in the name of each of the complaints within 90days, from the receipt of this order, otherwise, it will carry interest @ 9% p.a., till its realization.

         IV) I (2016) CPJ 171 (NC)

         National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

         Revision Petition No. 2738 of 2014

         Roop Krishan Khanna Vs. State Bank of India and Ors.

         8… This revision petition is, therefore, allowed, the order passed by the State Commission is set aside and the OP Bank is directed to transfer the said amount to the account of the Society. The other direction given in the order of the District Forum for payment of Rs.3,000/- as compensation for mental harassment and Rs.1,000/- as cost of litigation is also upheld. The OPI Bank is directed to comply with the order within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.

 The deposit is not paid hence, there is deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.

12.    The evidence tender by the complainant has to be accepted for the reason is placed before this forum. The O.Ps. bank represented by the Chairman and Manager severally are hereby directed to pay Rs.1,44,000/- to the complainant in respect of F.D.R. No.459, 476, 477 and 478 with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. within two months from the date of this order failing which they have  to pay interest at the rate of 11% from 03/05/2017, 16/07/2017 and 18/07/2017 respectively to till realization. Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony, 2,000/- cost of the complaint. Hence we answer point No.1 partly in the affirmative.

13. POINT NO:2: In the result, the complaint of the complainant is fit to be allowed in part. Hence, we proceed to pass the following:

O R D E R

     Complainant’s complaint is allowed in part as follows;

1. The OPs shall have to pay Rs.1,44,000/- (Rupees One lakh fourty four thousand only) to the complainant in respect of F.D.R. No.459, 476, 477 and 478 with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from 03/05/2017, 16/07/2017, 18/07/2017 and 18/07/2017 respectively till realization of the entire amount.
2. The Ops shall have to pay an amount of Rs. Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) for mental agony and Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand) towards litigation expenses to the complainant.
3. OP No.1 and OP No.2 jointly and severally have to comply this order within two months from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the amount of Rs.1,44,000/- carries interest at the rate of 11% p.a. till the date of realization.
4. Free copy of this order shall be sent to the parties immediately.

           (Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer corrected by me and then pronounced in the open Forum on this 27^th day of July, 2018).