Karnataka

Belgaum

CC/284/2016

Shailaja P Panshetti - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Chairman Shri Veershaiv Urban Cr Sou Saha Nyt - Opp.Party(s)

B P Deshinge

27 Apr 2017

ORDER

IN THE DIST.CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM BELAGAVI.

 

Dated this 27th day of April 2017

 

Complaint Nos. 275, 276, 278, 281 & 284/2016

 

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

                        2) Smt.Sunita                            Member

-***-

Complainant/s:

 

                Sri. Sahadev Shivagouda Kore

Age:  40 years, Occ: Business,

R/o: Nidashoshi, Tq: Hukkeri,

Dist: Belagavi. Now Residing at

Miraj Tq: Miraj Dt: Sangali,

CC-275/16, 278/16                                         

                Smt. Bhagyashri  Sahadev Kore

Age:  38 years, Occ: Household work,

R/o: Nidashoshi, Tq: Hukkeri,

Dist: Belagavi. Now Residing at

Miraj Tq: Miraj Dt: Sangali,

CC-276/16

                Sri. Mallikarjun Balappa Huddar,

Age:  35 years, Occ: Pvt. Service,

R/o: Nidashoshi, Tq: Hukkeri,

Dist: Belagavi. 

CC-281/16

                Smt. Shailaja Praveen Panshetti,

Age:  34 years, Occ: Household work,

R/o: Nidashoshi, Tq: Hukkeri,

Dist: Belagavi. Now Residing at

Shivabasava Nagar, Belagavi.

CC-284/16

(By Sri.B.P Deshinge,  Advocate)

 

                                                          V/s.

Opponent/s:

 

  1. The Chairman,

Sri Veerashaiv Urban Credit Souhard Sahakari Niyamit Nidasoshi,

Tq: Hukkeri, Dist: Belagavi,

 

  1. The Secretary,

Sri Veerashaiv Urban Credit Souhard Sahakari Niyamit Nidasoshi,

Tq: Hukkeri, Dist: Belagavi,

 

 

(case against OP.1 is closed &OP-2-Exparte)

 

 

(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 respective complainants. In both cases the O.Ps. are same. Hence, for convenience both cases are disposed of by the common order.

          II. Since there are 5 cases and complainants are having same address and particulars of the 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.

          U/s.12 of the C.P. Act, complainant/s have filed the complaints against the O.Ps. alleging deficiency in service of non payment of the F.D.Rs. amount.

          2) In-spite of service of notice O.P.2 remained absent. Hence placed ex-parte.  During the pendency of the complaints the OP.1 reported as expired & thereafter no steps were taken by complainant against OP.1. Hence case against OP.1 is closed.

          3) In support of the claim in the complaint, complainant/s have filed their affidavits and original F.D.Rs are produced by the complainants.  

          4) We have heard the argument of the complainants counsel and perused the records.

          5) Now the point for our consideration is that whether the complainants have proved deficiency in service on the part of the O.P’s. 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 perusal contents of the complaints and affidavit filed by the complainants, the complainants had invested their money in OP society as detailed under:

Sl.

No.

Compt. No.

Account/ FDR No.

Amt. Invested

Date of Invt.

Renewed upto

Matured Amt.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1

275/16

1573

62,000

19.04.13

18.10.15

77,500

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1

276/16

1572

62,000

19.04.13

18.07.15

77,500

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1

278/16

1571

62,000

19.04.13

18.07.15

77,500

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1

281/16

1396

27,200

13.05.11

03.11.15

37,400

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1

284/16

517

15,000

12.01.07

12.07.14

30,000

 

 

        8) The complainants submit that, after maturity of the above mentioned FDRs the complainants have approached OPs & requested to refund the matured FDRs amount to the complainants, but the OPs postponed the same on one or other pretexts and till date the OPs have not paid the matured FDRs amount to the complainants. Therefore the complainants are constrained to file these complaints against OPs.

9) On perusal of the affidavit filed by the complainants the original FDRs produced by the complainants are in the names of complainants  & after maturity of the FDRs  inspite of   demands made the amount remained unpaid, has to be believed and accepted. Inspite of service of notice to OP-2, remained absent, hence OP-1 is placed exparte. During the pendency of the proceedings the OP.1 reported as expired & thereafter no steps were taken by complainant against OP.1. Hence case against OP.1 is closed. Hence it is well settled legal position that non payment of the amount deposited, amounts to deficiency in service.

       10) 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. have been proved.

       11) Accordingly the following

 

:ORDER:

          The complaints are partly allowed.

         The Opponent.2 as shown in the cause title is hereby directed and liable to pay the complainants as ordered below :

Sl.

No.

Compt. No.

Account/ FDR No.

Amt. Invested

Date of Invt.

Renewed upto

Matured Amt.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1

275/16

1573

62,000

19.04.13

18.10.15

77,500

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1

276/16

1572

62,000

19.04.13

18.07.15

77,500

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1

278/16

1571

62,000

19.04.13

18.07.15

77,500

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1

281/16

1396

27,200

13.05.11

03.11.15

37,400

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1

284/16

517

15,000

12.01.07

12.07.14

30,000

 

 

 

          The matured F.D.Rs. amount under column No.7 with future interest @9% P.A. from the date of their last renewal of the respective FDRs i.e. column.6 till realization of the entire amount.

Further, Opponent. 2 as shown in the cause title is hereby directed and liable to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- in each case to the complainant/s towards costs of the proceedings.

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

Original order be kept in Compt.275/2016 & its copy in other connected cases.

(Order dictated, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on: Dated this 27th day of April 2017)

 

                                   

 

                Member                            President.

MSR

 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.