Karnataka

Belgaum

CC/570/2014

Satappa N Kotin. - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

P.S.Kulkarni.

11 May 2015

ORDER

Order dictated by Smt. S.S. Kadrollimath, Member.)

:: O R D E R ::

          U/s. 12 of the C.P. Act, the complainant has filed the complaint against the O.P. alleging deficiency in Banking service i.e. non-payment of part of the fixed deposit.

          2) OP in the version has contended that the complainant made false and incorrect allegations. OP bank has liquidated, the R.B.I. has cancelled the licence and OP being Liquidator, discharging statutory duties and as such, there is no privity of contract and that the complainant is not a consumer. Further, this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint.

          3) To prove the facts alleged in the complaint, the complainant has filed his affidavit and produced the documents. On the other hand, Liquidator for the OP has filed his affidavit.

          4) We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the both parties and we have perused the records.

          5) Now the point for our consideration is that whether the complainant 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) The complainant claim that he had kept fixed deposit with the O.P. bank and the total amount that he was entitled to was Rs.2,13,632/-. But a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- the D.I.C.G.C. has been paid and still balance is Rs.1,13,632/-. For this, the OP bank represented by the Liquidator has issued balance certificate No. 147 dated: 2/11/2010. The original Balance Certificate is on record. These facts pleaded in the complaint and stated by the complainant are not disputed by the OP. Hence, the said balance payable to the complainant by the OP bank is proved.

          8) There is no dispute that the OP bank has been liquidated and the Liquidator has been appointed. In the version, the OP contends that the R.B.I. as well as the Registrar of Co-operative Societies as well as the D.I.C.G.C. are necessary parties. The fact that the R.B.I. has cancelled the licence of the OP bank is nothing to do with the claim of the complainant. So also, the Deposit Insurance Corporation and the Registrar of Co-operative Societies. Hence, they are not at all a necessary parties to the proceedings. Moreover, the complainant has not at all alleged any grievance or deficiency in service on the part of the said parties. Hence, the contention of the OP that the complaint is not maintainable for non-joinder of parties, cannot be accepted.

          9) Next contention of the OP is that there is no privity of contract between the liquidator and the complainant and hence, the complainant is not a consumer. It may be true that the complainant has no contract or transaction with the liquidator, but the complainant has banking transaction with the OP bank and the complainant have availed the banking service of the OP. The OP bank is represented by the Liquidator. Claim and grievance of the complainant is not against the Liquidator directly, but against the OP bank. Hence, the complainant is consumer and the complaint is maintainable.

          10) The OP in the version has contended that the Liquidator is discharging the statutory duties and as such, there is no deficiency in service. At the cost of repetition, as noted in the earlier paragraph the grievance of the complainant is not against the Liquidator in person, but against the OP bank. The Liquidator has to discharge his duties as per the Act, Rules, Regulations and the Direction of the authorities concerned. But the fact remains that the dispute is between the complainant and the OP bank. As regards, the contention of the Liquidator that he is discharging statutory duties and as such, the complaint is not maintainable, further it may be taken note of several aspects such as, that Karnataka Housing Board, the District Urban Development Authorities and several other statutory bodies represented by the concerned authorities, discharge statutory duties as per the respective Act, Rules and Regulations and in case of deficiency in service by the Housing Board, Development Authority etc., are covered by the definition of the service provided under the C.P. Act, and for those deficiencies, the complaints U/s 12 of the C.P. Act, are maintainable. Hence, the said contention of the Liquidator also cannot be appreciated.

          11) It is pertinent to note that even according to the Liquidator of the OP bank, has been appointed as such by the concerned authority. The Liquidator has been appointed to take necessary steps in respect of the assets and liabilities of the OP bank and to discharge the duties as per the Act, Rules, Directions and Circulars in that regard. Hence, it is the duty of the liquidator to satisfy the claim of the creditors or depositors. It is not at all the contention of the Liquidator that the assets of the OP bank is not sufficient to discharge the claim of the complainant. Hence, the OP bank represented by the Liquidator is answerable to the claim of the complainant.

12) 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.

13) Considering the fact, evidence and discussion made here before, following order.

:: O R D E R ::

 

          The complaint is partly allowed.

          The O.P. bank represented by the Liquidator is hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,13,632/- to the complainant with interest at the rate of 8% P.A. from 2/11/2010 till realization of the entire amount in respect of balance certificate No.147 dated 2/11/2010. 

          Further, the O.P. bank represented by the Liquidator is hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- to the complainant towards cost of the proceedings.

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

If the order is not complied within 30 days the O.P. Bank represented by the liquidator is hereby directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.50/- per day till compliance of the order.

(Order dictated, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on: 11^th day of May 2015)

                  Member            Member                    President.

g.m*