Karnataka

Belgaum

CC/545/2014

Bhimappa H Sanadi. - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Chairman. Hidkal Dam Urban Co-Op Cr Society Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Ashok A Patil.

03 Mar 2016

ORDER

(Order dictated by Shri. B.V.Gudli, President)

: ORDER :

          I. The complainant/s are different in the cases, their grievances, allegations and the facts pleaded are same except the details of the deposits by the respective complainants. In these two cases the O.P. society is same, represented by Chairman and Secretary. Hence for convenience these two cases are disposed of by the common order.

          II. Since there are 2 cases and same number of 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 cases.

          1) The relevant facts of the cases are that the respective complainant/s 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 deposit/s.

          2) Notices were issued against Opponents, said notices were served on opponents. O.P. No. 1 and 2 are present through their counsel in complaint No.545/2014 and filed their affidavit, but objection are not filed by these opponents. The opponents in complaint No.544/2014, have filed their objection and their affidavit.

          3) In support of the claim of the complainant, complainants have filed his affidavit by way of evidence and original F.D.Rs. are produced by the complainant.

          4) We have taken argument as heard and perused the records.

          5) Now the point for our consideration is that whether the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of the opponents and entitled to the reliefs sought?

          6) Our finding on the point is partly in affirmative, for the following reasons.

:: REASONS ::

          7) The complainant/s filed their affidavit by way of evidence and they have stated in their respective affidavits that for the future maintenance and solve the domestic financial problem in future they were very much interested to invest their saved money in fixed deposits scheme and to get better interest. The complainant/s have approached the opponents society and they have invested the saved money in the said fixed deposits in Op’s society detailed as under;

SL No	Complaint No.	FDR Nos.	Amounts Deposited	Date of Deposit	Maturity Amount	Date of  Maturity
1	2	3	4	5	6	7
1	544/2014	1639	12,500	18/4/2006	25,000	18/10/2012
2	545/2014	1644	30,000	21/4/2006	60,000	12/9/2011
		1645	40,000	21/4/2006	80,000	7/8/2012

 

        8) The complainant/s further stated that after the maturity of said F.D.R’s and to solve the domestic financial problems complainant/s approached the opponents society at Hidkal Dam, and requested for the release of the said fixed deposit/s matured amount with interest, but the opponents are postponing the same on one or the other reasons.

          9) Lastly fed up with the opponents behavior they have issued legal notice through their advocate on 30/5/2013 and calling upon the opponents No.1 to 2 for the immediate release of F.D.R’s amount with interest, but they failed to make payment as mentioned above within the stipulated period till today. Thus opponents caused deficiency of service and due to the deficiency on the part of the opponents. Hence complainants constrained to file this complaint before this forum.

         10) In complaint No.544/2014, the complainant is represented by minor guardian, his mother and the counsel of opponents filed their objection in the complaint No.544/2014 and admits the F.D,R’s of the complainant and denied all other allegations of complaint. The Opponents contends that,  the complainant has never approached the Op’s society after the maturity of F.D.R’s. and after receipt of the notice of complainant dated 11/04/2014, the opponents called the complainant to the society and informed that the society has already filed the arbitration cases against the debtors who are defaulters of the society and the execution cases are pending and some are to be filed for recovery, and requested the complainant to wait for some time and co-operate, but the complainant not heeded the request of opponents and  filed this complaint. Therefore the opponents prayed to dismiss the complaint on this count. The opponents are one and same in both the cases but in complaint No.544/2014 objection and affidavit is filed but in the complaint No.545/2014 only objection is filed and no affidavit of the opponents filed.       

          9) On perusal documents produced by the complainant/s  F.D. Receipts which  are standing in the name of complainant/s and also produced F.D.Rs. for having deposited amount in the O.P. society. Inspite of maturity the opponents have not paid the maturity amount. O.Ps. fails to pay F.D.Rs. amount after maturity period. The contention of Opponents in complaint No.544/2014 that, after receipt of the notice of complainant dated 11/04/2014, the opponents called the complainant to the society and informed that the society has already filed the arbitration cases against the debtors who are defaulters of the society and the execution cases are pending and some are to be filed for recovery, and requested the complainant to wait for some time and co-operate, but there are no any document coming forth. Hence mere contention of Op’s are not believable and acceptable and hence there is deficiency in service on the part of the opponents.

          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) 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.

          12) Accordingly, following order.

: ORDER :

          The complaint is partly allowed.

          The O.Ps. represented by the Chairman and Secretary jointly and severally are hereby directed to pay to the complainant/s a sum of Rs.25,000/- in respect of FDR No.1639 in complaint no. 544/2014. And a sum of Rs.60,000/- and Rs.80,000/-  in respect of FDR No.1644 and F.D.R. No.1655 in complaint no. 545/2014 respectively with future interest at the rate of 8% P.A. from 19/10/2012, 13/9/2011 and 8/8/2012 respectively till realization of the entire amount.

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

          Order shall be complied within one month 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.544/2014 and the true copy in other clubbed cases.

          (Order dictated, corrected & then pronounced in the Open Forum on this 3^rd day of March 2016)

          Member                    Member                    President

gm*