Karnataka

Belgaum

CC/229/2016

Ricky Emmanuel S Dai - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Chairman , B.B. Hanji of Yamakanmardi Urban Co-Op Cr Scty Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

L M Patel

11 May 2017

ORDER

IN THE DIST.CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM BELAGAVI.

 

Dated this 11 May 2017

 

Complaint No. 229/2016

 

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

                        2) Smt.Sunita                            Member

-***-

Complainant/s:

1.      Sri. Ricky Suprit Emmanuel

Now called as Ricky Emmanuel s/o.Suresh Dai,

Age: 20 years, Occ: Student,

R/o. Municipal Building, Opp. Part Fort, Bellary Dist. Bellary 5803102

 

2.      Smt. Prasanna Suresh Dai,

Age: 48 years, Occ: Teacher,

R/o. Old Municipal Building, Opp. Part Fort, Bellary Dist. Bellary 5803102

 

                             

(By Shri. L.M.Patel, Adv)

 

                                                          V/s.

Opponent/s:

 

1. The Chairman, Shri.B.B.Hanji of

Yamakanamardi Urban Co-Op Cr. Society Ltd.,

Branch at Belagavi situated behind the Asst. Commissioner Office, Belagavi, At: Belagavi.  

 

2. The Manager,  

Yamakanamardi Urban Co-Op Cr. Society Ltd.,

Branch at Belagavi situated behind the Asst. Commissioner Office, Belagavi office, At: Belagavi.  

  

(Op.1 & 2 by Sri.D.S.Pachandi Adv.)

 

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

 

ORDER

          U/s.12 of the C.P. Act, complainants have filed the complaint against the O.Ps. alleging deficiency in service of non payment of the F.D.R. amount.

          2) Upon service of notice to O.Ps. the OP.1 and 2 appeared through their counsel and filed their objections and evidence affidavit.

          3) In support of the claim in the complaint, complainant.1 has filed his affidavit and original F.D.R is produced by the complainant.

          4) We have heard the argument of the counsel of the complainant and OPs arguments is taken 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 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.1, the complainant.1 is the son of complainant.2, the complainant.2 was originally from Belagavi and after she is residing at Bellary. The complainant.2 had kept FD in OP society an amount of Rs.7500/- on 13.08.1997 for a period of 18 years in the name of complainant.1, when the complainant.1 was 2 years old. So the complainant.2 is the minor guardian or complainant.1 of the said FD amount in the OP society. The said FDR was matured on 13.08.2015 and the maturity amount is Rs.1,06.217/-. After the maturity of the said FDR the complainant.1 and 2 approached the OPs to pay the said FDR maturity amount, but the OPs postponed the same on one or other reasons. Hence the complainant.1 issued notice through his advocate to OPs on 13.10.2015 calling upon them to pay the said FDR maturity amount, but the OPs failed to comply the notice. Hence opponents committed deficiency in service as contemplated under the provision of the consumer protection act 1986. Therefore the complainants constrained to file this complaint against OPs.

        8)        The OP-2 filed objections to the complaint and the same is adopted by OP-1. The OPs in their objections denied and disputed the complaint averments and contended that, there is a confusion in the cause title of the complaint and it is not clearly stated that what is name of complainant.1 and they have not produced any documents to show that the complainant.1 and 2 are son and mother and further neither the complainant.1 nor complainant.2 have never visited the OP society and have not filed any withdrawal voucher. The complainants have claimed the interest @18% on the imaginary basis, hence prays for dismissal of the complaint with cost.

          9)      On perusal documents F.D.R produced by the complainants, the FDR is standing in the name of the complainant.1. The OPs have contended in their objections that there is a confusion in the cause title of the complaint and it is not clearly stated that what is name of complainant.1 and they have not produced any documents to show that the complainant.1 and 2 are son and mother. In this regard the complainant.1 has produced his birth certificate and SSLC Marks sheet issued by the government authorities. On perusal evidence affidavit of the complainant.1, after maturity of F.D.R the opponents have not paid F.D.R amount. Hence, the claim of the complainants that inspite of the demands made the amount remained unpaid, has to be believed and accepted. 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, following order.

 

: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  FDR No.403 amount of Rs.1,06,217/- to the complainants with future interest @9% P.A. from the date of maturity till realization of the entire amount. 

          Further, the Opponents. 1 and 2 as shown in the cause title are hereby jointly and severely directed and liable to pay   a sum of Rs.3,000/- to the complainants towards costs 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: 11 May 2017)

 

 

 

MSR