Karnataka

Belgaum

CC/143/2014

Sameer M Nadaf - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Chairman. Garib Nawaz Urban Co-Op Cr Society Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

M.S.Patil.

23 Mar 2015

ORDER

(Order dictated by Smt. S.S.Kadrollimath, Member)

COMMON ORDER

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 all the cases the O.P. society is same, represented by Chairman and Secretary. Hence for convenience all the cases are disposed of by the common order.

          II. Since there are 3 cases and same number complainants are there having different addresses and particulars of their 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 annexure.

          1) The relevant facts of the cases are that the respective complainants have filed the complaints u/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 against the O.Ps. alleging deficiency in banking service of non refund of the fixed deposits/deposit.

          2) O.P.No.1 and O.P.No.2 appeared through advocate and has contended that the financial condition of the O.P. society is weak. Hence they are unable to release the said F.Ds. amount. Further the O.Ps. society requested to wait for some period for the above mentioned reasons. Further the contended that there is no willful negligence on the part of the O.ps. in payment of F.D. amount to the complainant. Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of O.Ps. etc.,

3) In support of the claim in the complaint, complainants has filed his affidavit and certain documents including original F.D.R./s are produced. We have heard arguments of the both the counsels and perused the record.

4) Now the point for our consideration is that whether the complainant has proved any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. and he is entitled to the reliefs sought?

5) Finding on the point is partly in affirmative for the following reasons.

:: R E A S O N S ::

          6) From the evidence on record it has been proved that The complainant/s have deposited the amount in O.P. society in F.D.R/s. in the respective accounts and for the respective some mentioned in the F.D.R/s. The maturity value, the amount deposited and the dates are shown in the annexure/table below;

Sl. No.	Complaint No.	FDR/FDR. A/c. No.	Date of deposit	Amount deposited	Date of maturity	matured Amount
1	2	3	3	4	5	6
1	143/14	000737	1/11/2005	20,000	1/11/2011	40,000
2	144/14	000739	7/11/2005	20,000	7/11/2011	40,000
3	145/14	000738	1/11/2005	20,000	1/11/2011	40,000

 

7) Grievance of the complainant/s is that after maturity inspite of the repeated requests the maturity value was not paid and hence there is deficiency in service. O.P.No.1 and O.P.No.2 appeared through advocate and has contended that the financial condition of the O.P. society is weak. Hence they are unable to release the said F.Ds. amount. Further the O.Ps. society requested to wait for some period for the above mentioned reasons. Further the contended that there is no willful negligence on the part of the O.ps. in payment of F.D. amount to the complainant. Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of O.Ps. etc.,

          8) Prior to filing of the complaint the complainant approached the O.P. society and requested orally for the release of the F.D. matured amount. But the O.Ps. does not heed the request and refused to make payment of matured F.D. This act of O.Ps. clearly shows that non payment of the matured F.D.Rs. amounts to deficiency in service. These facts alleged in the complaint are stated by the complainant in the affidavit. Hence, deficiency in service is proved.

          9) Taking in to consideration of various aspects and the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court reported in (2011) SCCR 268 and of the Hon’ble Apex Commission reported in 2013 (2) CPR 574 as well as other subsequent decisions absolutely it is just and necessary to impose cost on daily basis if order remains uncomplied within the period fixed for compliance of the order, so as to have feeling and pinch.

          10) Accordingly, following order.

ORDER

          The complaints are partly allowed.

          The O.Ps. represented by the Chairman and Secretary are jointly and severally are hereby directed to pay to the complainant/s as ordered below;

 

Sl. No.	Complaint No.	FDR/FDR. A/c. No.	Date of deposit	Amount deposited	Date of maturity	matured Amount
1	2	3	3	4	5	6
1	143/14	000737	1/11/2005	20,000	1/11/2011	40,000
2	144/14	000739	7/11/2005	20,000	7/11/2011	40,000
3	145/14	000738	1/11/2005	20,000	1/11/2011	40,000

 

The O.Ps. represented by the Chairman and Secretary are jointly and severally are hereby directed to pay the F.D.R/s. amount matured to the complainant/s as mentioned in column No.6 with interest at the rate of 8% from the dates mentioned at column No.5 as shown in the table above respectively.

          Further, the O.Ps. represented by the Chairman and Secretary are jointly and severally are hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- in each complaint, to the complainant/s towards costs of the proceedings.

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

If the order is not complied within stipulated period, O.Ps. are hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.50/- per day to the complainant from the date of disobedience of order, till the order is complied.

The original order shall be kept in complaint No.143/2014 and the true copy in other clubbed cases.

 (Order dictated, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on: 23rd day of March 2015)

Member                    Member                    President.

gm*