Karnataka

Belgaum

CC/32/2017

Shri. Mahadev Ramappa Mangasuli - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Chairman - Opp.Party(s)

D.S.Pachandi

28 Jun 2017

ORDER

IN THE DIST.CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM BELAGAVI.

 

Dated this 28 June 2017

 

Complaint No. 32/2017

 

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

                        2) Smt.Sunita                            Member

-***-

Complainant/s:

Sri. Mahadev Ramappa Mangasuli, 

Age: 80 years, Occ: Nil,

R/o. Hebbal, Tq.Gandhinglaj,

Dist.Kolhapur, Maharashtra.

 

 

(By Shri. D.S.Pachandi, Adv)

 

                                                          V/s.

Opponent/s:

 

1)      The Chairman,

Sri.Basavaraj Gundkale,

Mayur Multipurpose Souhard Sahakari Niyamit, Sankeshwar, C/o.Shree Siddhivinayak Souhard Sahakari Niyamit, Sankeshwar, Opp.Nesari Garden, Hukkeri Road, Sankeshwar, Tq. Hukkeri, Dist.Belagavi.

 

 

2)      The Secretary,

Mayur Multipurpose Souhard Sahakari Niyamit, Sankeshwar, C/o.Shree Siddhivinayak Souhard Sahakari Niyamit, Sankeshwar, Opp.Nesari Garden, Hukkeri Road, Sankeshwar, Tq. Hukkeri, Dist.Belagavi.

 

 (OP.1 by Sri.K.R.Shaha Adv. and OP-2-Exparte)

 

 

 (Order dictated by Smt.Sunita, Member)

 

 

 

 

ORDER

          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) Upon service of notice the OP.1 appeared through his counsel and filed objections and evidence affidavit. Inspite of service of notice, OP-2 remained absent, hence placed exparte.

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

          4) We have heard the argument of both side 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 complainants the complainant has invested his amount in OP Souhard as detailed below

Sl. No.	Complaint No.	F.D.R. No.	Amount Deposited	Date of Deposits	Due  Date	Maturity Amount/ claimed
1	2	3	4	5	6	7
1	32/17	374	1,00,000	27.04.11	27.04.12	1,13,000
2		375	1,00,000	27.04.11	27.04.12	1,13,000
3		376	1,00,000	27.04.11	27.04.12	1,13,000
4		377	1,00,000	27.04.11	27.04.12	1,13,000
5		378	1,00,000	27.04.11	27.04.12	1,13,000
6		450	1,24,000	23.02.12	23.02.13	1,40,120
7		464	1,00,000	25.04.12	25.04.13	1,13,000
8		465	1,00,000	25.04.12	25.04.13	1,13,000

 

After the date of maturity the complainant approached OPs & requested to release the matured FDRs amount with interest, but OPs postponed the same on one or other reasons. Till today the OPs have not paid the above mentioned amount. Hence opponents committed deficiency in service as contemplated under the provision of the consumer protection act 1986. Therefore the complainant/s are constrained to file this complaint against OPs.

        8)        On perusal of objections filed by OP-1, the OP-1 has admits the FDRs of the complaint and denied all other allegations of the complainant. The OP-1 has further contended that, except the FDRs all other allegations are false & baseless. The OP-1 has further contended that, the complainant has never approached the OP-1 and not requested at any time to release the FDRs amount.  Hence there is no deficiency of service on the part of OPs & prays for dismissal of the complaint with cost.

9)      On perusal of objections of OP-1, the OP-1 has mainly contended that, the complainant has never approached the OP-1 and not requested at any time to release the FDRs amount. But on perusal of allegations of complainant and affidavit in our opinion the contention of the OP-1 is mere contention and hence it is unbelievable. On perusal of original F.D.Rs produced by the complainant, the FDRs are standing in the name of the complainant and after maturity of F.D.Rs the opponents have not paid F.D.Rs amount. Hence, 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.Ps. have been proved.

       11) Accordingly the following

 

:ORDER:

          The complaint is partly allowed.

          The Opponents. 1 and 2 as shown in the cause title are hereby jointly and severely directed and liable to pay the matured  FDRs amount to the complainant, as per column.7 of the Annexure to this order, with future interest @9% P.A. from the due/ maturity date till realization of the entire amount. 

          The Opponents. 1 and 2 as shown in the cause title are hereby jointly and severely directed and liable to a sum of Rs.3,000/- to the complainants towards cost of the proceedings.

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

(Order dictated, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on: 28 June 2017)

 

 

 

 

 

ANNEXURE

Sl. No.	Complaint No.	F.D.R. No.	Amount Deposited	Date of Deposits	Due  Date	Maturity Amount/ claimed
1	2	3	4	5	6	7
1	32/17	374	1,00,000	27.04.11	27.04.12	1,13,000
2		375	1,00,000	27.04.11	27.04.12	1,13,000
3		376	1,00,000	27.04.11	27.04.12	1,13,000
4		377	1,00,000	27.04.11	27.04.12	1,13,000
5		378	1,00,000	27.04.11	27.04.12	1,13,000
6		450	1,24,000	23.02.12	23.02.13	1,40,120
7		464	1,00,000	25.04.12	25.04.13	1,13,000
8		465	1,00,000	25.04.12	25.04.13	1,13,000

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MSR