Karnataka

Belgaum

CC/222/2016

Shivanand S Kadakol - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Chairman. The Belgaum Postal And RMS Dn. Co-Op Cr Scty Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

R L Sudhal

26 Apr 2017

ORDER

IN THE DIST.CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM BELAGAVI.

 

Dated this 26^th day of April 2016

 

Complaint Nos. 222, 223 and 224/2016 

 

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

                        2) Smt.Sunita                            Member

-***-

Complainant/s:

 

Mr. Shivanand Shivabasappa Kadakol,

Age: 72 years, Occ: Rtd. Govt Servant,

R/o: Teachers Colony, Vinayak Nagar,

Hindalaga, Belagavi.

In all cases

(By Shri. R.L.Suldhal, Adv)

 

 

                                                          V/s.

Opponent/s:

 

          1)      The Chairman,

The Belgaum Postal & RMS Dn. Co-Op. Credit Society Ltd., Belgaum, Station Road, 1^st Floor,  Head Post Office, Belagavi.

 

          2)      The Vice Chairman,

The Belgaum Postal & RMS Dn. Co-Op. Credit Society Ltd., Belgaum, Station Road, 1^st Floor,  Head Post Office, Belagavi.

 

          3)      The Secretary,

The Belgaum Postal & RMS Dn. Co-Op. Credit Society Ltd., Belgaum, Station Road, 1^st Floor,  Head Post Office, Belagavi.

         

4)      The Executive Officer/President,

The Belgaum Postal & RMS Dn. Co-Op. Credit Society Ltd., Belgaum, C/o.Sr. Superintendent of Post Offices, Belgaum Division, III Floor, Station Road, Head Post Office, Belagavi.

 

(OP.1&3 is Exparte & OP.2 By Sri.S.R.Sakri Adv & OP.4 by Sri.S.N.Patil Adv.)

 

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

 

COMMON ORDER

          I. Though the complainants are same, 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.Ps. are same. Hence, for convenience all the cases are disposed of by the common order.

          II. Since there are 3 cases and same the complainant is there having same addresses 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 has filed the complaint 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.1 and 3 remained absent. Hence, placed ex-parte. OP.2 &4 appeared through their counsel and filed objections &  affidavit.

          3) In support of the claim in the complaint, complainant has filed his affidavit and original F.D.Rs are produced by the complainant. The complainant has also filed written argument.

          4) We have heard the argument of both the counsels 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 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 complaint and affidavit filed by the complainant, the complainant got retired in Postal Department and was member of OPs society. After his retirement the complainant had kept his service benefits amount in OP society as detailed under:

Sl.No.	Compt. No.	FDR /Account  No.	Date of Invt.	Amt. Invested	Due Date	ROI
1	2	3	4	5	6	7
1	222/14	1114/243	09.01.12	2 lakhs	09.01.13	10% P.A
2		1115/244	09.01.12	2 lakhs	09.01.13	10% P.A
1	223/14	1116/245	09.01.12	2 lakhs	09.01.13	10% P.A
2		1117/246	09.01.12	2 lakhs	09.01.13	10% P.A
1	224/14	1133/262	15.06.12	1 lakh	15.06.13	10.20% P.A

 

 

        8) The complainant submits that,  after the elections of OP society in February 2015 the OPs stopped to pay monthly interest on the above FDRs. Inspite of requests and issuance legal notice to OPs on 16.04.2016 the OPs failed to pay FDRs amount and interest. Hence opponents committed deficiency in service as contemplated under the provision of the consumer protection act 1986. Therefore the complainant is constrained to file this complaint against OPs.

        9)        The OP.2 filed written version contending that, the OP-2 and office bearers of OP society were duly elected by Cooperative Election Commission to function w.e.f. 01.04.2015 onwards. This OP society is registered under KCS Act with membership restricted to employees of Postal & RMC Division only and there is no scope for providing any services either to outsiders and or other individuals who are no members. The complainant is neither member not is authorized to carry any business transactions with society. The OP disputes age of the complainant as 72 years, if complainant’s age is 72 years he is barred from retaining deposits with such society. At the time of internal audit the FDRs 243 & 244 dt.09.01.2012 are not finding any space in cash book. The complainant after the maturity of FDRs has also not chosen to withdraw the deposits on the  date of maturity and / or not opted for renewal of the FDRs. The OP further contended that the complainant admits that he retired in 2005 & had retained FDRs even after retirement, which in itself is wrong. Further, it is denied that there exists no claims post interest since 2015, which is not at all agreed. The complainant has also not furnished mandatory KYC norms to the OPs society. Hence there is no deficiency of service on the part of OP.2 & prays for dismissal of the complaints with heavy costs.

10)    The OP-4 in his objections contended that the complaint against OP.4 is not maintainable as OP.4 is not connected with the society affairs. The OP.4 is only Ex-officio member and hence there is no burden on OP.4. & prays for dismissal of the complaints with heavy costs.

 

11)    On perusal of contents of objections and evidence of OPs, the OPs contended that the said FDRs are created one and the complainant is not member of the OP society etc. But to prove the case of the OP, neither he has examined the ex-secretary or office bearers nor produced any cogent evidence in their support.

12)    The complainant submits that, after the elections of OP society in February 2015 the OPs stopped to pay monthly interest on the above FDRs. Inspite of requests and issuance legal notice to OPs on 16.04.2016 the OPs failed to pay FDRs amount and interest. Hence as per the self-admission of the complainant he has received interest on the FDRs upto February 2015. Hence if the OPs are directed to release the FDRs amount with interest from March 2015 onwards by collecting the mandatory KYC documents, it will meets the ends of justice.

13) On perusal of the affidavit filed by the complainant the original FDRs & SB A/c produced by the complainant are in the name of complainant  & after maturity of the FDRs  inspite of the demands made the amount remained unpaid, has to be believed and accepted. Inspite of  service of notice the OP-1 & 3 remained absent, Hence placed exparte.  Hence it is well settled legal position that non payment of the amount deposited, amounts to deficiency in service.

       14) 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.

       15) Accordingly, following order.

 

:ORDER:

          The complaints are partly allowed.

          The Opponents.1 to 4 as shown in the cause title are hereby jointly and severely directed and liable to pay the complainant as ordered below.

Sl.No.	Compt. No.	FDR /Account  No.	Date of Invt.	Amt. Invested	Due Date	ROI
1	2	3	4	5	6	7
1	222/14	1114/243	09.01.12	2 lakhs	09.01.13	10% P.A
2		1115/244	09.01.12	2 lakhs	09.01.13	10% P.A
1	223/14	1116/245	09.01.12	2 lakhs	09.01.13	10% P.A
2		1117/246	09.01.12	2 lakhs	09.01.13	10% P.A
1	224/14	1133/262	15.06.12	1 lakh	15.06.13	10.20% P.A

 

          The invested F.D.Rs. amount under column No.5 with agreed rate of interest mentioned at column no.7 respectively from the date of investment (i.e. column.4), till due date (i.e. column.6) after deducting the interest paid upto February 2015 on respective FDRs, along with future interest @9% P.A. from the date of maturity of FDRs respectively till realization of entire amount.

 

Further, the Opponents.1 to 4 as shown in the cause title are hereby jointly and severely  directed and liable to pay a sum of Rs.1,000/- in each case to the complainant 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.222/2016 & its copy in other connected cases.

(Order dictated, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on: 26^th day of April 2016)

 

                                   

 

MSR