Karnataka

Belgaum

CC/47/2016

Leeladevi S Navalagund - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Liquidator Katkol Co-Op Bank Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

H M Patil

25 Feb 2017

ORDER

IN THE DIST.CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM BELAGAVI.

 

Dated this 25^th  day of February 2017

 

1. Complaint No.45 /2016
2. Complaint No.47 /2016

 

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

                        2) Smt.Sunita                            Member

-***-

 

Complainant/s:

Shri.Somalingappa S/o.Mahadevappa Navalagund,

Age: 60 years, Occ: Doctor &  Agriculture,

R/o.House No.28, “Trinetra”, 21^st Crosss,

Lingaraj Nagar, Hubli North, Hubli, Dist. Dharwad

In Compt.45/2016

 

Smt.Leeladevi w/o.Somalingappa Navalagund,

Age: 52 years, Occ: Doctor &  Household,

R/o.House No.28, “Trinetra”, 21^st Crosss,

Lingaraj Nagar, Hubli North, Hubli, Dist. Dharwad

In Compt.47/2016

(By Shri. S.L.Matti, Adv.)

 

 

                                                          V/s.

 

Opponents:

1. The Liquidator, Katakol Co-Op. Bank Ltd.,

Katakol, Tq.Ramdurg, Dist. Belagavi.

 

(by Sri.P.R.Kulkarni, Adv.)

 

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

 

 

COMMON ORDER

                I. The complainant/s grievances, allegations and the facts pleaded are same except the details of the deposits by the respective complainants. In these cases the O.Ps. are same. Hence for convenience all the cases are disposed of by the common order.

          II. Since there are 2 cases and different complainants and having same address 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 table.

          1) The complainant/s have filed these complaints u/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 against the O.P. alleging deficiency in banking service of non refund of the balance amount of fixed deposits.

          2) Upon service of notice O.P. appeared through his counsel & filed his evidence and objections to the complaints.

          3) In support of the claim in the complainants, complainants have filed affidavit and original balance certificates are produced by the complainants.

          4) We have heard the argument of both counsels 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.P.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 complainants and affidavit filed by the complainants the complainants had invested their money in O.P. co-operative bank as detailed below.

Sl.No.	Compt No.	Certificate/ Claim No.	Deposit Amt	Amt Paid	Date of payment	Balance Amt
1	45/16	27307	319770-69	100000	13.11.10	219770-69
2.	46/16	27317	356526-50	100000	08.11.10	256526-50

 

 

8)      After completion of the period the complainants approached the bank & requested for repayment of the said amount with interest. The OP promised repayment of the amount by receiving original cash certificate and issued balance certificate to the complainants on 13.11.2010 stating that DICGC Claim of Rs.1 lakh. Thereafter   the complainants approached the OP bank & requested for repayment of the amount with accrued interest, but the bank authorities did not make payment. On 06.07.2015 the complainants issued legal notice to OP for repayment of the amount with accrued interest. The said legal notice was received by OP Bank. Inspite of service of the said notice, the OP neither replied nor complied with the same. Hence the complainants have constrained to file these complaints before this forum.

          9)      On the other hand the OP has filed objections to the complaints denying and disputing the complaint averments and further contended that, the liquidator is government servant acting under the directions of RBI. The liquidator has never accepted any deposits from depositors & hence he has never provided any services to the complainants and hence he cannot be termed as service provider and there is no deficiency of service on the part of OP. In view of the critical liquidity position and the various other factors and to prevent preferential payment and to preserve assets of the Bank the RBI canceled the license to carry out banking business in India in favor of the said Bank under its order dt.24.06.2009. Thereafter Registrar of Karnataka Co-Op. Society has passed order of liquidator of OP Bank vide its order dt.24.06.2009 & liquidator ARCS Bailhongal as Liquidator on 10.07.2009. Since then the liquidator is discharging his duties. As per Sec.21(2) of DICGC Act 1961 R/w. Regulation 22 (b) utilization of funds out of realization of assets & recoveries of loan for repayment to the depositors above Rs.1 lakh be allowed only after repayment of insured amount released by the DICGC who has got the preferential right over the amount realized by the Bank. Unless and until the said insured amount is repaid to the said corporation, the liquidator has right to repay the amount of the depositors having deposits above Rs.1 lakh. Hence there is no privity of contract between liquidator & complainants and prays for dismissal of the complaints.

          10)    On perusal of affidavit and documents and contention of both the parties there is no dispute between the parties regarding investment of the amount by the complainants. Though the OP has contended that, as per law he is acting only as liquidator and there is no privity of contract between OP and complainants, the contention of OP holds no water, as the OP has stepped into shoes of the bank, he is liable to pay the amount of depositors.

          11)    Regarding investment of amount by the complainants the complainants have not specifically stated about date of maturity and interest payable etc. Hence if it is ordered to OP to pay the balance amount with future interest as per the certificates issued by OP, it will meets the ends of justice. The certificates issued by OP are in the name of complainants and after maturity of deposits, the opponent has not paid the balance amount. It is well settled legal position that non payment of the amount deposited, amounts to deficiency in service.

         12) Taking into consideration of the facts, evidence on record and the discussion made here before deficiency in service on the part of the O.P has been proved.

          13) 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.

          14) Accordingly, following order.

ORDER

          The complaint is partly allowed.

The O.P. represented by Liquidator is hereby directed and liable to pay to the complainants as ordered below.

Sl.No.	Compt No.	Certificate/ Claim No.	Deposit Amt	Amt Paid	Date of payment	Balance Amt
1	45/16	27307	319770-69	100000	13.11.10	219770-69
2.	46/16	27317	356526-50	100000	08.11.10	256526-50

 

The balance amount under column no.7 with future rate of interest 9% P.A. from the date of last payment i.e. column no.6, till realization of the entire amount.

Further, the O.P is hereby directed and liable to pay Rs.3,000/-, to the complainants in each case 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.P. is hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.50/- per day to the complainants from the date of disobedience of order, till the order is complied.

Original order be kept in Compt.45/2016 & its copy in Compt.47/2016.

(Order dictated, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on: 25^th day of February 2017)

 

 

 

MSR