BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AT BELLARY

C.C.No. 108 of 2019     

Present :-  

(1)  Shri.N.Thippeswamy., B.A. LLB.               …………..…  Hon’ble President.

(2)  Shri.Somashekarappa.k.Handigol, B.com., LLb.(Spl),.Hon’ble Member.

DATED THIS THE 31^st DAY OF MARCH-2022

// O R D E R //

By Hon’ble President Shri.N.Thippeswamy.

  This is a complaint filed by the complainant against the opposite parties U/Sec-12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.   

       2.  The complaint in brief is that, the complainant is Power of attorney holder of Smt. Meera R.Gujjar. She has deposited a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-, Rs.5,00,000/- and Rs.5,00,000 on 06-03-2017, totally Rs.15,00,000/- as Fixed Deposit  vide FD receipt No. 1854, 1855 and 1856 for a period of one year.   The OPs have agreed to repay the said amount with interest at 12% p.a., and accordingly, they have paid interest on 19-06-2018 for the said amount for one year i.e., upto 06-03-2018.    The complainant has opened R.D. account in the name of her daughter Smt. S.Meenakshi and the agreed interest for the FD is credited to R.D. account No.256 and the said last interest amount received on 19-06-2018.   On 06-03-2018 he visited the OP office and renewed the said FD amount for further one year and the said amount was matured on 06-03-2019 and also OPs have agreed to pay 12% p.a., interest for the said amount.   On 06-03-2019 he was approached OPs office for return of the FD amount and interest, but the OPs have assured that, the FD amount and interest will be returned after one or two weeks, but the OPs have not cared and postponing the payment of FD amount and interest.    Therefore, the complainant has got issued a legal notice on 12-06-2019 to the OPs for which the OPs have replied to the said notice stating that they have asked some more time for payment of the FD amount.  Hence, the act of the OPs is nothing but deficiency in service on their part towards the complainant.  Hence, he filed the present complaint for the reliefs as prayed in the complaint.      

       3.     After service of the notice by this Commission, the OP No.3 to 11 have failed to appear and challenging the case of the complainant, hence, they placed ex-parte. 

      4.    The OP No.1 & 2 have appeared through their counsel and the OP No.2 has filed the written version stating that;

             The complaint is filed by complainant/ S.Raju S/o. Narasingha Rao, alleged to be the Power of Attorney holder of Smt. Meera.R. Gujjar, W/o. Late. Ramesh Gujjar, from the allegations of the complaint as such one Smt. Meera.R. Gujjar is the alleged FD holder of the OPs society.  The said S.Raju alleged to be the Power of Attorney holder of said Smt. Meera.R. Gujjar will not become the complainant in the present case and S.Raju cannot in anyway prosecute the OPs Society in any manner.  The complaint as against the President and Secretary of the Vasavi Credit Cooperative Society Ltd., is not tenable in the present Commission as the President and the Secretary are not the parties in person and it is only the Vasavi Credit Cooperative Society Ltd.  The Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies has declared election of the present society on 15-12-2019 and there was no Election held and as such the governing body of the Society being dissolved and as such the authorities like Assistant Registrar of the Cooperative Societies has taken over the administration of the said society since the date of declaration of election and as such the said authority is also proper and necessary party to the present proceedings.  The present President, being elected in the month of March-2018 and the Secretary being elected in the month of January-2019, prior to that, the Vasavi Credit Co-operative Society was headed by earlier president and Secretary.  During the tenure of those President and Secretary, the society was running under loss since the financial year of 2013-14 till this date.  The present President and Secretary are unable to manage the financial affairs of the society in proper manner and to mobilize the funds in time to make the payment to the deposit holders or even to other creditors.  The present President and Secretary and other governing members took time to settle the claim of the complainant. The President and Secretary and the governing members are now working hard to recover the dues from its debtors to satisfy the claim of the complainant and others.  There are also several cases pending against the debtors before the Courts for recovery of dues.  The present claim by the complainant will be satisfied by the Society in due course whenever the funds are mobilized with it.  On these grounds, the OP No.2 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint with cost.

 5.   In order to prove the case of the complainant, he has filed his evidence affidavit as PW-1 and got marked 32 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P-32.  The OP No.1 & 2 has not adduced affidavit evidence inspite of sufficient time granted to them.    

                6.   Heard the oral arguments on both side.

        7.  The points that arise for our consideration are;

8.   The findings on the above points are as under.  

// R  E A S O N S //

Point No.1: - 

     9.   There is no dispute between the complainant and opposite parties regarding on 06-03-2017  the complainant has deposited amount of Rs.5,00,000/-, Rs.5,00,000/- and  Rs.5,00,000 totally amount of Rs.15,00,000/-  with the OPs as Fixed Deposit for a period of 12 months at interest rate of 12% and accordingly, they have paid the said interest on 19-06-2018 upto  06-03-2018, he was opened R.D. account in the name of her daughter i.e., Smt. S.Meenakshi  and the agreed interest for the FD is credited to R.D. account No.256 and the said last interest amount is received by the complainant on 19-06-2018,  on 06-03-2019 he visited the OPs’ office and renewed the said FD amount for further one year and the said amount was matured on 06-03-2019 and also OPs have agreed to pay 12% p.a., interest for the said amount,  it is further case of the complainant that, in spite of repeated requests and issuing of legal notices, the Ops have not refunded the said amounts, as such, the said act of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service. 

    10.    Per contra, the OP No.1 & 2 have contended that, the complainant/ S.Raju S/o. Narasingha Rao, alleged to be the Power of Attorney holder of Smt. S. Meenakshi, the said S.Raju alleged to be the Power of Attorney holder of said Smt. S. Meenakshi, will not become the complainant in the present case and S.Raju cannot in anyway prosecute the OPs’ Society in any manner and the present President of the said Society being elected in the month of March-2018 and the Secretary being elected in the month of January-2019, prior to that, the Vasavi Credit Co-operative Society was headed by earlier president and Secretary, during the tenure of those President and Secretary, the society is running under loss since the financial year of 2013-14 till this date, the present President and Secretary are unable to manage the financial affairs of the society in proper manner and to mobilize the funds in time to make the payment to the deposit holders or even to other creditors, the present President and Secretary and other governing members took time to settle the claim of the complainant.

     11.   The OP No.1 & 2 have contended the complainant  S.Raju alleged to be the Power of Attorney holder of Smt. Meera Gujjar and  said Smt. Meera Gujjar will not become the complainant in the present case and S.Raju cannot in anyway prosecute the OPs’ Society in any manner.  The complainant has produced the Power of Attorney which is marked as Ex.P-32.  The said document is not specifically denied by the OPs.  Further the OPs have not challenged the power of attorney of complainant before the competent court of law.  Hence, the say of the OPs i.e, S.Raju cannot in anyway prosecute the OPs’ Society in any manner, is not worth reliable.

    12.   To prove the case, the complainant has produced Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-3 which are the fixed deposit receipts said to have been issued by the OPs.    Ex.P-4 is the legal notices issued to the OPs by the complainant requesting them to refund of the said FD amounts along with accrued rate of interest.  Ex.P-5 to Ex.P-30 are the postal receipts and acknowledgments, Ex.P-31 reply notice given by the OP and Ex.P-32 is the power of attorney of the complainant.

    13.    On perusal of the documents produced by complainant marked as Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-3 FD receipts, it proves that on 06-03-2017 the complainant has deposited a total sum of Rs.15,00,000/- as FD with the OPs’ Society with interest @ 12% p.a.  As per Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-3, the OPs have repay the amount with accrued rate of interest.  In spite of agreed to repay the amount with interest, the OPs have failed to repay the same within the time as agreed by them. Non refund of the said FD amount with agreed rate of interest within the time is nothing but a deficiency of service on the part of the OPs and further it is the duty cast on newly elected Body to refund the said  F. D amount of the holders as they are succeeded to have their post in the society by election.  However, the OPs have also admitted the transaction between them and complainant, but they have sought time to settle the amount.

    14.   In this regard, we relied upon the judgments of Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Bhopal in reported in 1 (2003) CPJ 575 between M/s Vijay Trading Company & ORS. Vs. Smt. Chandrabai, where in it has been held that, “Consumer Protection Act 1986- Section 2(1) (g), 15 – Indian Stamp Act 1899 Section 2(23) – Financial Service – Non Payment of Fixed Deposit – Failure to refund deposited amounts on maturity amounts to deficiency in service – complaint allowed by Commission”

// and //

 Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission New Delhi in reported in 1 (2002) CPJ71 (NC) between Smt. KALAWATI & ORS Vs. UNITED VAISH CO-OPERATIVETHRIFT & CREDIT SOCIETY LTD, where in it has been held that, “ Consumer Protection Act-1986 Section 3 – Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, 1972 – Sections 93, 60 – Thrift and Credit Society Jurisdiction – Complainants had deposited various amounts with an Thrift and Credit Society – Society defaulted in making payment after maturity – District Commission allowed the complaint- State Commission set aside the orders- Whether jurisdiction for FOR A is barred? (No)”.

      15.    On perusal of the above said judgments, same are deals with the maturity of F.D amounts and non-payment of the said amount is a deficiency of service on the part of the bank/society. In the instant case also the OPs have not refund the FD amount with accrued rate of interest inspite of repeated request by the complainant.  Due to the act of the OPs, the complainant suffered mental agony for which he is to be compensated.

       16.    The OPs have contended in their version that they have sought some time to settle the amount of the depositors.  However, now days it is commonly found that number of complaints filed by the deposit holders under an impression that the Bank/Co-operative societies will have to be bankrupt and whether they have to receive the amount or not.

       17.     For the reasons discussed above, the complainant has proved the case of the deficiency in service against the OPs and hence, we answer the point No.1 in Affirmative.

Point No.2:-

     18.   As the complainant has established deficiency of service on the part of the OPs, he is entitled for refund of F.D amounts with agreed rate of interest along with compensation for mental agony and cost of the proceeding, which shall be as per final order. Hence, the Point No.2 is answered Partly in the Affirmative.

// ORDER //

The complaint filed by the complainant is partly allowed against the OP No.1 to 11 only.

 The complainant is entitled to recover the FD amounts of Rs.15,00,000/- with agreed interest @ the rate of 12%  as mentioned in F.D receipts, from 06-03-2018 till its realization of the entire amount, from OPs.

 The complainant is entitled for Rs.5,000/- as compensation for mental agony from the OPs. 

The complainant is also entitled for Rs.3,000/- as cost of the proceeding from the OPs.

The opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to pay the above said amounts to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order.

        Inform the parties accordingly.