Complaints filed on: 03-07-2021

                                                      Disposed on: 06-08-2022

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, TUMAKURU

#201, 202, 1^st Floor, Indian Red Cross Building Complex,

Ashoka Road, Tumakuru-572 101. 

DATED THIS THE 6^th DAY OF AUGUST, 2022

PRESENT

SMT.G.T.VIJAYALAKSHMI, B.Com, L.L.M, PRESIDENT

SRI.KUMARA.N, B.Sc., L.L.B, MEMBER

SMT.NIVEDITA RAVISH, B.A., L.L.B, LADY MEMBER

CC.No.49/2021

Smt. Shylaja W/o Sritheertha,

Aged about 40 years, R/at 1^st

“A” Cross Road, Siddaganga

Extension, Tumakuru City.

(By Sri.N.Ramanjana Reddy, Advocate)

V/s

Vakkaligara Sowhardha Pattina Sahakri Ni,

Gumchi Square, Tumakuru City.

Vakkaligara Sowhardha Pattina Sahakri Ni,

Gumchi Square, Tumakuru City.

 (By Sri.S.K.Mallikarjuna, Adv.,)

                                                          :O R D  E R :

SMT.NIVEDITA RAVISH -  LADY MEMBER

          This complaint is filed U/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 to direct the Opposite Parties (hereinafter called as OPs) to settle the FDR amount in favour of the complainant as per law under the terms of FDR with interest from the date of approaches of the OPs till its realization at the rate of 12% PA and further prays to direct the OPs to pay sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards mental pain, agony, communication expenses, litigation expenses along with interest at 12% PA for deficiency of service of the Ops.

2.        In the present case OP No.1 is the Chief Executive Officer of Vakkaligara Sowhardha Pattina Sahakri Niyamitha (hereinafter called as OP No.1) and OP No.2 is the President of Vakkaligara Sowhardha Pattina Sahakri Niyamitha (hereinafter called as OP No.2).

3.       It is the case of the complainant that, OPs are running Financial Institution and doing financial business.  On the request and approaches of OPs, the complainant had deposited the amount under fixed deposit bond as described below

Due to the urgent personal and financial needs, complainant has approached the OPs and made request to return the maturity amount, but the OPs have been dodging the matter instead of returning the said amount.  Thereafter the complainant has got issued legal notice on 26.11.2020, which are duly served to OPs.  After receipt of the said notices, the OPs failed to pay the FD amount, on the other hand they have issued evasive reply notice dated:10/12/2020 by denying the transaction with created story.  The OPs have not made any arrangement to return the said maturity amount and OPs have showing negligence act, deficiency in service.  Hence, the complaint.  

4.       After registering the complaint, Commission notice was issued to OPs and OP Nos. 1 & 2 were appeared before this Commission through their common counsel and filed their version with 03 documents, those are 1) True copy of the General Body Meeting of OPs for the year 2016-17, 2) Copy of the Legal notice dated:25/11/2020 issued by complainant and 3) office copy of reply notice issued by the OPs. 

4(a)   In their version, the OPs are admitted that, they are running financial institution and further OPs are denied all the allegations as false which are made by the complainant.  Further, the OPs are submitted that, the complainant is not a customer to OPs Niyamitha, however complainant has worked as a Chief Executive Officer of the OP Niyamitha since 08.10.2012 to 03.09.2014.  As per the norms of the OPs Niyamitha, complainant has deposited Rs.50,000/- towards security while entering the Job and said amount is returnable without any interest at the time of leaving Job, if there is no any allegations or mis-appropriation while discharging their duty.  Further, the OPs have submitted that the complainant has made mis-appropriation in her duty while issuing the cheque towards vehicle loan.  For the recovery of the said loan amount, Niyamitha had initiated proceedings before Co-Operative Authority under Co-Operative Act.  Management of the OPs Committee placed subject matter in the General Body meeting for the year 2016-17 which was held on 06.08.2017, where the complainant was also very much present in the said meeting and members of the Niyamitha discussed the matter with elaborately and finally passed resolution in the said General Body till the clearance of vehicle loan amount obtained which was mis-appropriated by the complainant, the security amount of the complainant shall be held in Niyamitha.  Further the OPs have submitted that, because of the negligent act towards discharging her duty (the complainant), the OPs have sustained monetary loss in their banking business and also mis-appropriated the public money, for that the complainant is held answerable and it is her(complainant’s) bounden duty to co-operate with the OPs to recover the said loan amount.  Under the said circumstances, there is no deficiency in service of the OPs.  For that, the OPs have prayed for dismissal of the complaint against the OPs with costs.  

5.       The complainant has filed her affidavit with 05 documents i.e., 1) Original and Xerox copy of the F.D. receipt No.55, 2) Copy of the Ledger Extract, 3) Copy of the requisition letter dated:24.09.2020, 4) Copy of the Legal notice issued by the complainant dated:25/11/2020 and 5) Copy of reply notice dated:10.02.2020.  One Smt.Soumya M.S., Chief Executive Officer of the OPs Niyamith filed her affidavit on behalf of OPs.

6.       We have heard the oral arguments of the counsel for complainant and OPs have submitted their written arguments and prayed to consider the same as oral arguments.  The points that would arise for determination are as under:-

1. Whether the complainant proves deficiency of service on the part of OPs?

2. Is complainant is entitled to the relief sought for?

7.        Our findings on the aforesaid points are as under:

Point No.1: In the Affirmative

Point No.2: As per final order for the below

:R E A S O N S:

Point Nos.(1) and (2):-

8.       Counsel for the complainant argued that the complainant has deposited Rs.50,000/- in Fixed Deposit receipt No.40/55 in the OPs Niyamitha.  To prove the same, the complainant has produced the document No.1 which is original F.D. bond issued by the OPs to the complainant.  The said F.D. bond clearly proves that, F.D. receipt No.40/55 deposited amount is Rs.50,000/- interest rate 12%, issue date:23.04.2014, due date:23.08.2017, maturity amount is Rs.68,510/-.  The said document also reflects that it was renewed and the date of maturity after the renewal is 23.06.2020.  Further, the complainant has produced document No.2/copy of the ledger extract is proves the same.  Further the complainant submitted that, she has approached the OPs for refund of matured amount and made request with OPs and to prove the same, the complainant has produced the document No.3 copy of requisition letter to OPs dated:24.09.2020.

9.       Counsel for OPs argued that all allegation made by the complainant are false.  Counsel for the OPs submitted that, the complainant is not a customer to OPs Niyamitha.  But document Nos. 1 & 2 produced by the complainant are proves that the complainant is the customer of OPs Niyamitha.  Further, the OPs submitted that, complainant was worked as a Chief Executive Officer of the respondent Niyamitha since 08.10.2012 to 30.09.2014, however as per the norms of OPs Niyamitha at the time of joining the job to respectable and responsible posts supposed to deposit some amount towards security amount with OPs Niyamitha and accordingly the complainant had deposited a sum of Rs.50,000/- at the OPs Niyamitha.  According to OPs, complainant has joined as Chief Executive Officer in OPs Niyamitha on 08.10.2012 ad deposited Rs.50,000/- for security, but on perusal of document No.1 produced by the complainant and issued by the OPs Niyamitha is clearly proves that the complainant has deposited Rs.50,000/- on 23.04.2014 not on 08.10.2012, when she has been entering to the job in OPs Niyamitha.  Hence, submission made by OPs is not believable and further the OPs have not produced any document to show that they demanded security deposit from the complainant and to show that complainant has deposited Rs.50,000/- for security when she has been entering the job in OPs Niyamitha on 08.10.2012.

10.     Further, counsel for the OPs submitted that when the complainant discharging her duty with OPs Niyamitha as a CEO/Manager she was mis-appropriated her post as per the norms of Niyamitha, if any person approached for loan towards purchase of vehicle, at that time such cheque shall be payable to the dealers of the vehicle, accordingly one Pruthviraj.P was granted vehicle loan with the OPs Niyamitha, at the time instead of issuing the cheque in favour of vehicle dealers, the complainant intentionally just to cheat the OPs Niyamitha  had issued the cheque in favour of said Pruthivraj.  This negligence of complainant had caused monetary loss to the OPs Niyamitha.  The OPs have not produced any document to show that, the complainant issued the cheque negligently towards one Pruthviraj .P for vehicle loan, in contrary OPs have produced their document No.1 – True copy of the General Body meeting proceedings of OPs Co-Operative Ltd., for the year 2016-17 whereas they mentioned as “²æêÀÄw ±ÉÊ®dgÀªÀgÀÄ vÀªÀÄä ¤²ÑvÀ oÉêÀtÂAiÀÄ£ÀÄß »A¥ÀqÉAiÀÄ®Ä PÉýzÁUÀ:¸ÀºÀPÁjAiÀÄ ªÀiÁf PÁAiÀÄðzÀ²ðAiÀiÁzÀ ²æêÀÄw ±ÉÊ®dgÀªÀgÀÄ ¸ÀºÀPÁjAiÀÄ°è EnÖzÀÝ oÉêÀt ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ªÁ¥À¸ÀÄì ¤ÃqÀĪÀ «ZÁgÀzÀ°è ¢üÃWÀð ZÀZÉð £Éqɹ, ¥ÀÈyégÁeï EªÀgÀ ºÉ¸ÀjUÉ ªÁºÀ£À ¸Á® ªÀÄAdÆgÁVzÀÝ, ¸ÀzÀjAiÀĪÀjUÉ ¤ÃqÀ¨ÉÃPÁzÀ ¸Á®zÀ ªÉÆvÀÛzÀ ZÉPïC£ÀÄß ªÀiÁf ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÁzÀ ²æà £ÀgÉÃAzÀæ PÀĪÀiÁgïgÀªÀjUÉ ¤Ãr PÀvÀðªÀå ¯ÉÆÃ¥À J¸ÀVgÀĪÀ PÁgÀt ²æêÀÄw ±ÉÊ®eÁgÀªÀgÀ ¨sÀzÀævÁ oÉêÀt ªÉÆvÀÛªÀ£ÀÄß £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ°è EvÀåxÀðªÁUÀĪÀªÀgÉUÉ vÀqÉ »qÉAiÀÄ®Ä ¸ÀªÁð£ÀĪÀÄvÀ¢AzÀ wêÀiÁð¤¸À¯Á¬ÄvÀÄ”.  On perusal of the contention of the above said document, we found the differences in the submission made by the OPs counsel is totally different from the contention in the above document.  OPs counsel submitted that the complainant negligently issued the cheque towards one Pruthiviraj .P and in the contention taken in the copy of General Body Meeting of the OPs that, the complainant issued cheque towards one Shri.Narendrakumar.  Hence, we considered that the submission made by the OPs is looks like false.

11.     Document Nos. 3 & 2 produced by the complainant proves that the complainant had deposited Rs.50,000/- in the OPs Niyamitha and after renewal of the deposited amount, the maturity date was on 29.06.2020 and maturity amount is Rs.68,526/-.  It is the bounden duty of the OPs Niyamitha to return back the maturity amount after the date of maturity to the complainant.  Inspite of issuing the legal notice by the complainant on 26.11.2020, the OPs have not complied the same.  This act of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service. 

12.     The complainant has prayed interest @ 12% PA on the matured amount from the date of her approaches till its realization.  The complainant is entitled for interest @ 9% PA on the maturity amount from the maturity date i.e. 23.06.2020 till its payment.  Hence, the OPs shall liable to pay maturity amount i.e. Rs.68,526/- with interest @ 9% from maturity date i.e. 23.06.2020 till its realization to the complainant.  Further, complainant prays for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards mental pain, agony, communication expenses, and litigation expenses along with interest @ 12% PA.  But the complainant has not produced any document to show that she is entitled for Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation.  The OPs have committed deficiency of service in not returning the amount deposited by the complainant.  The OPs have compelled the complainant to approach this Commission, thereby she suffered mental agony, for that, the OPs shall pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-.  Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following:-   

:O R D E R:

The complaint is partly allowed with costs.

The OP Nos. 1 & 2 are jointly and severally directed to pay Rs.68,526/- with interest @ 9% PA from 23.06.2020 till its realization.

It is further ordered that the OP Nos. 1 & 2 are jointly and severally shall liable to pay litigation cost of Rs.10,000/- and compensation of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant within 30 days from the date knowledge/receipt of this order.  Otherwise, it carries interest @ 10% PA from the date of filing of this complaint till the date of realization.

Furnish the copy of order to the complainant and opposite parties at free of cost.