Karnataka

Belgaum

CC/394/2016

Mr.Ravi Ramachandra Kadakol - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Chairman - Opp.Party(s)

B.R.Kapahi

30 Jun 2017

ORDER

IN THE DIST.CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM BELAGAVI.

Dated this 30 June 2017

1. Complaint No. 392/2016
2. Complaint No. 393/2016
3. Complaint No. 394/2016
4. Complaint No. 395/2016
5. Complaint No. 396/2016
6. Complaint No. 397/2016

 

 

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

                        2) Smt. Sunita,                          Member

-***-

Complainant/s:

                             Sri.Ramchandra Parasharam Kadakol,

                             Age: 65 years, Occ: Retired,

                             R/o: Pushpak Bungalow, Sector No.27,

II Cross, Mahadwar Road, Belagavi

                                                C.C. No.392/16

 

                             Smt.Rukmini Ramchandra Kadakol,

                             Age: 60 years, Occ: Household,

                             R/o: Pushpak Bungalow, Sector No.27,

II Cross, Mahadwar Road, Belagavi

                                                C.C. No.393/16

 

                   1.      Sri.Ravi Ramchandra Kadakol,

                             Age: 36 years, Occ: Business,

                             R/o: Pushpak Bungalow, Sector No.27,

II Cross, Mahadwar Road, Belagavi

 

2.      Master Harshad s/o.Ravi Kadakol,

                             Age: 08 years, Occ: Student,

R/o: Pushpak Bungalow, Sector No.27,

II Cross, Mahadwar Road, Belagavi

Since minor R/by his guardian/ father the complainant.1

                                                C.C. No.394/16

 

                             Smt.Sneha w/o.Ravi Kadakol,

                             Age: 29 years, Occ: Household,

                             R/o: Pushpak Bungalow, Sector No.27,

II Cross, Mahadwar Road, Belagavi

                                                C.C. No.395/16

 

                   1.      Smt.Geeta w/o.Raju Kadakol,

                             Age: 34 years, Occ: Household ,

                             R/o: Pushpak Bungalow, Sector No.27,

II Cross, Mahadwar Road, Belagavi

 

2.      Miss.Bhumika D/o. Raju Kadakol,

                             Age: 11 years, Occ: Student,

R/o: Pushpak Bungalow, Sector No.27,

II Cross, Mahadwar Road, Belagavi

 

3.      Master.Pritam S/o. Raju Kadakol,

                             Age: 09 years, Occ: Student,

R/o: Pushpak Bungalow, Sector No.27,

II Cross, Mahadwar Road, Belagavi

 

Since complainant.2 and 3 are minors R/by their guardian/ mother, the complainant.1

                                                C.C. No.396/16

 

 

          Mr.Aditya Anand Kadakol,

                             Age: 12 years, Occ: Student,

R/o: Pushpak Bungalow, Sector No.27,

II Cross, Mahadwar Road, Belagavi

Since minor R/by his guardian/ father 

Mr.Anand Ramachandra Kadakol,

Age: 41 years, Occ:Business,

R/o.-do-

                                                C.C. No.397/16

 

                             (By Sri. B.R.Kapahi, Adv.)

 

                                                          V/s.

 

Opponent/s:      

                   1)      The Chairman,

                             Shree Aashraya Souhard Credit Society Ltd.,

                             R/by Mr.Shrikant Rajaram Mali,

                             R/o.H.No.157/29, Parvati Nivas, Bhandur Galli,

                             Belagavi.

         

                   2)      The Manager,

                             Shree Aashraya Souhard Credit Society Ltd.,

                             Main Branch, RPD Cross, Tilakwadi, Belagavi.

 

                             (OP.1 by Sri.S.R.Sakri, Adv., OP-2 dismissed)

 

 

(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 complainants.  In all the cases the opponents are same, as shown in the cause title. Hence for convenience all the cases are disposed of by the common order.

          II. Since there are 6 cases and different complainants are there having same 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 table.

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

          2) Upon service of notice O.Ps., OP.1 appeared through his counsel and filed written version, affidavit and produced some documents. As per the memo filed by the complainant/s case against OP-2 is dismissed.

          3) In support of the claim in the complaints, complainants  have filed affidavits and original F.D.Rs. are produced by the complainants.   

          4) We have heard the arguments and perused the records.

          5) Now the point for our consideration is that whether the complainant/s have proved deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. 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 the perusal contents of the complaint/s and affidavit filed by the complainants, the complainants have deposited their amount in OP souhard as detailed below:

 

Sl. No.	Complaint No.	F.D.R  No.	Amount Deposited	Date of Deposits	Due / maturity Date	Maturity Amount/ claimed
1	2	3	4	5	6	7
1	392/16	1569/38	40,000	26.07.11	26.01.13	47,071
1	393/16	1570/38	40,000	26.07.11	26.01.13	47,071
1	394/16	1571/38	20,000	26.07.11	26.01.13	23,194
2		1568/38	40,000	26.07.11	26.01.13	46,388
1	395/16	1567/38	40,000	26.07.11	26.01.13	46,388
1	396/16	1562/38	40,000	26.07.11	26.01.13	46,388
2		1572/38	40,000	26.07.11	26.01.13	46,388
3		1563/38	40,000	26.07.11	26.01.13	46,388
1	397/16	1565/38	40,000	26.07.11	26.01.13	46,388

 

          8)      After the maturity of the above FDRs the complainant/s approached the OPs and requested for refund of FDRs amount with interest, but the opponents went on postponing the same by assigning one or other reasons. Ultimately on 02.07.2016 the complainant/s also got issued legal notice to OPs for release of FD amount prematurely. Inspite of that OPs have failed to comply the legal notice. Hence opponents committed deficiency in service as contemplated under the provision of the consumer protection act 1986.

9) The OPs.1 has filed objections to the complaints denying and disputing the complaints averments and further contended that the complaints are pre matured and hence not maintainable. There are variations in the signatures of the complainant/s against the deposit accounts of the society and this OP agrees and admits specimen signatures for discharge of FDRs and unless those match the claims of deficiency of service is denied. The General Manager and Branch Manager of Narvekar Galli Branch had misused the official stationary of OP souhard and issued false/fabricated certificates. The complainants have not furnished KYC documents inspite of intimating them. Hence there is no deficiency of service on the part of OPs and pray for dismissal of the complaints.

10)    On perusal of objections of the OP, the OP.1 has taken contention that the documents are fake and forged and not accounted for, there has been creation of the accounts by the General Manger and Branch Manager of Narvekar Galli Branch. To substantiate this issue the OPs failed to produce any documents and also failed to produce evidence before this forum.

11)    The OP-1 has taken another contention that there are variations in the signatures of the complainant/s against the deposit accounts of the society and this OP agrees and admits specimen signatures for discharge of FDRs and unless those match the claims of deficiency of service is denied. To prove this contention the OP has not produced any documents or filed any application before the forum to refer the disputed signatures to any handwriting expert.

12)    On perusal evidence affidavit of the complainants, the complainants produced original FD Receipts, they are in the name of complainants. It is well settled legal position that non payment of the amount deposited, amounts to deficiency in service.

13)    The OP.1 has taken contention regarding non submission of KYC documents by the complainants to the OP Society. The OPs are at liberty to release the respective amount of complainants after receiving KYC documents from complainants.

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. has been proved.

          15) Accordingly, the following

 

ORDER

         The Complaint is partly allowed.

          Case against OP.2 is dismissed.

          The Opponent.1 as shown in the cause title is hereby directed and liable to pay the complainants as ordered below;

Sl. No.	Complaint No.	F.D.R. No.	Amount Deposited	Date of Deposits	Due / maturity Date	Maturity Amount/ claimed
1	2	3	4	5	6	7
1	392/16	1569/38	40,000	26.07.11	26.01.13	47,071
1	393/16	1570/38	40,000	26.07.11	26.01.13	47,071
1	394/16	1571/38	20,000	26.07.11	26.01.13	23,194
2		1568/38	40,000	26.07.11	26.01.13	46,388
1	395/16	1567/38	40,000	26.07.11	26.01.13	46,388
1	396/16	1562/38	40,000	26.07.11	26.01.13	46,388
2		1572/38	40,000	26.07.11	26.01.13	46,388
3		1563/38	40,000	26.07.11	26.01.13	46,388
1	397/16	1565/38	40,000	26.07.11	26.01.13	46,388

 

The matured F.D.Rs. amounts mentioned in column No.7 with future interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of maturity, as mentioned in column No.6 till realization of the entire amount.

          The Opponent.1 as shown in the cause title is hereby directed and liable to pay the complainants a sum of Rs.3,000/- in each case towards cost of the proceedings.

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

The original order shall be kept in complaint No.392/2016 and the true copy in other clubbed cases.

 

         (Order dictated, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on this 30 June 2017)

 

 

 

 

MSR