IN THE DIST.CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM BELAGAVI.

Dated this 28^th day of September 2016

Complaint No.40/2016

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

                        2) Smt.Sunita                            Member

-***-

Complainant/s:

Shri. Sunil S/o.Gajanan Ratan,

Age: 45years, Occ: Business,

R/o. Laxmi Extension, Gokak,

Tal: Gokak, Dist.Belagavi

                    (By Shri. K.R. Shaha, Advocate)

                                                          V/s.

Opponents:

1)      The Chairman,

The Hidakal Dam Urban Co-Op Credit Society Ltd.,

Hidkal-Dam, (H.O.) At/po: Hidakala Dam,

Tal: Hukkeri, Dist.Belagavi.

2)      The Secretary,

The Hidkal-Dam Urban Co-Op Credit Society Ltd.,

Hidkal-Dam, At/po: Somarwarpeth, Market Road, above Danamma Devi Society, Gokak, Tal: Gokak,

Dist. Belagavi.

                    (By Shri. R.M.Dharigoudar, Advocate)

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

ORDER

          1) The relevant facts of the case is that the complainant has filed the complaint 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 amount.

          2) After service of notice O.P appeared through his counsel but, not filed objection and affidavit.

          3) In support of the claim in the complaint, complainant has filed affidavit and original F.D.R.

          4) We have heard the arguments 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. 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 complainant and affidavit filed by the complainant the complainant stated that complainant was interested to invest his saved money in FD scheme where he can get better interest. When came in contact with OP society  they explained about their FD scheme. Believing their words complainant invested his hard earned money  with OP society as detailed below.

8)      8)      The complainant further alleged that after several requests  he approached the OP for release of above said amount with interest, but OP postponed the same & the other reasons. Lastly complainant issued legal demand notice to OPs  through his advocate on 08.01.2016 calling upon the OPs for immediate release of matured FD amount with upto date interest.  But the OPs failed to pay the same. Hence opponent committed deficiency in service as contemplated under the provision of the Consumer Protection act 1986.

9) On perusal evidence affidavit of the complainant the complainant produced the original F.D.R. which is in the name of complainant & inspite of the demands made to the O.P. has not paid the amount and remained unpaid, has to be believed and accepted. After service of notice the OP appeared before the forum, but not filed his affidavit and objections.  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.P’s 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 are  hereby jointly and severally directed and liable to pay matured FDR amount of Rs.22,200/- to the complainant under  matured F.D.R No.616 with future interest at the rate of 8% P.A. from 29.08.2014 till realization of the entire amount.

Further, the O.P. represented by the Chairman and Secretary are  hereby jointly and severally directed and  liable to pay Rs.3,000/-, to the complainant 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.P is 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.

(Order dictated, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on: 28^th day of September 2016)

        Member                                        President.

msr