Karnataka

Belgaum

CC/365/2015

Mangala R Shetwal - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Chairman,The Belagavi Liberal Credit Souhard Co-Op Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

D G Bhat

28 Dec 2015

ORDER

(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 respective complainants. In all the cases the O.P. society is same, represented by Chairman and Branch. Hence for convenience all the cases are disposed of by the common order.

          II. Since there are 3 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 cases only will be shown in the cause title and the details of the deposits will be shown separately in the annexure.

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

          2) In-spite of service of notice O.Ps. remained absent. Hence placed ex-parte.

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

          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.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 perusal contents of the complainant and affidavit filed by the complainant. The opponent Souhard Co-Op had offered to pay the better rate of interest and as such the complainant had invested the money in form fixed deposit scheme. They have deposited the following sum with opponents details are as below;

Sl. No.	Complaint No.	F.D.R./ A/c. No.	Date of deposit	Amount deposited	Date of maturity	matured Amount
1	2	3	4	5	6	7
1	365/2015	1119	16/9/2011	20,000	16/9/2012	22,600
		1118	16/9/2011	20,000	16/9/2012	22,600
		1522	7/1/2013	25,000	7/1/2014	28,250
2	366/2015	1363	19/7/2012	15,000	19/8/2013	17,113
		1385	29/8/2012	15,000	29/8/2013	17,113
3	367/2015	1276	16/2/2012	20,000	16/2/2013	22,600
		1361	12/7/2012	15,000	12/7/2013	16,950
		1393	6/9/2012	20,000	6/9/2013	22,600
		1523	7/1/2013	25,000	7/1/2014	28,250

          8) The complainant requested the opponents to return the matured amount, inspite of that opponent went on postponing the same by assigning reasons that they have no cash available to make the payment in respect of fixed deposit and flatly refused to make the payment. Complainant/s constrained to file these complaints. 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, after maturity of F.D.R/s. the opponents have not paid F.D.R/s. amount. Inspite of the demands made to the O.Ps. have not paid the amount. Hence, the claim of the complainant/s that inspite of the demands made the amount remained unpaid, has to be believed and accepted. It is well settled legal position that non payment of the amount deposited, amounts to deficiency in service.

          10) 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.

          11) Accordingly, following order.

ORDER

          The complaints are partly allowed.

          The O.Ps. represented by the Chairman and Branch Manager are hereby directed to pay to the complainant/s as ordered below;

Sl. No.	Complaint No.	F.D.R./ A/c. No.	Date of deposit	Amount deposited	Date of maturity	matured Amount
1	2	3	4	5	6	7
1	365/2015	1119	16/9/2011	20,000	16/9/2012	22,600
		1118	16/9/2011	20,000	16/9/2012	22,600
		1522	7/1/2013	25,000	7/1/2014	28,250
2	366/2015	1363	19/7/2012	15,000	19/8/2013	17,113
		1385	29/8/2012	15,000	29/8/2013	17,113
3	367/2015	1276	16/2/2012	20,000	16/2/2013	22,600
		1361	12/7/2012	15,000	12/7/2013	16,950
		1393	6/9/2012	20,000	6/9/2013	22,600
		1523	7/1/2013	25,000	7/1/2014	28,250

The O.Ps. represented by the Chairman and Branch Manager jointly and severally are hereby directed to pay the matured F.D.R/s. amount to the complainant/s as mentioned in column No.7 with future interest at the rate of 8% P.A. from the dates mentioned in column No.6 respectively till realization of the entire F.D.Rs. amount.

          Further, the O.Ps. represented by the Chairman and Branch Manager jointly and severally are hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- in each complaint, to the complainant/s 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.Ps. are 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.

The original order shall be kept in complaint No.365/2015 and the true copy in other clubbed cases.

 (Order dictated, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on: 28^th day of December 2015)

                Member                                President.

gm*