Date of Filing : 24.03.2010
Date of Order : 27.03.2012
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLAR
Dated 27th MARCH 2012
PRESENT
Sri. H.V. RAMACHANDRA RAO, B.Sc., BL, ……. PRESIDENT
Sri. T.NAGARAJA, B.Sc., LLB. …….. MEMBER
Smt. K.G.SHANTALA, B.A., LLB. …….. MEMBER
Consumer Complaint No. 26 / 2010
Sri. R. Srinivasa Raju,
S/o. Sri. K. Rangaraju,
Aged about 55 years,
Mechanic in Panchayathraj
Engineering Sub Division, Kolar and
R/o: Muneswar Nagar, 3rd Cross,
Kolar City.
(By Sri. B.K. Giridhar, Adv.) ……. Complainant
V/s.
1. The Manager,
Karnataka Contractors’ Sahakara
Bank Niyamitha,
Branch Office situated at
PWD Office Building, M.B. Road,
Kolar – 563 101.
2. The Liquidator,
(Karnataka Contractors’ Sahakara
Bank Niyamitha),
Rep. by Additional Registrar of Co-op. Societies,
Kaveri Bhavan,
Bangalore – 560 009.
(By Sri. B. Venkateshaiah, Adv.) …… Opposite Parties
ORDER
By Sri. H.V. RAMACHANDRA RAO, PRESIDENT
The brief antecedents that lead to the filing of the Complainant made u/s. 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 seeking direction to the OP to pay Rs.60,624/- to the Complainant are necessary:
Complainant had deposited Rs.20,000/- on 10.06.2002 under FDR L/F-222/13 with the OP and it was to be matured on 11.09.2009. Complainant had deposited another sum of Rs.20,000/- on 08.04.2003 vide Cash Certificate No. 026100 which was due on 09.04.2011. After maturity of the FDR, Complainant approached OP for payment of Rs.40,624/- and also sought premature payment of other Cash Certificates, as the Complainant’s mother was admitted to Hospital for operation, Complainant was in urgent need of funds for her operation and approached OP for the payment. But, amount was not given because of non availability of the funds. Unfortunately, Complainant’s mother died on 10.01.2010. If Complainant would have got the money in time, he could have saved his mother by spending money on her operation. Hence this Complaint.
2(a). In brief version of the OP1are:-
FD amount belonging to the Complainant is not properly stated. It is admitted that some FD was kept by the Complainant with the Bank and after liquidation of the said Bank on 12.02.2004 OP through its liquidator has paid Rs.1,00,000/- on 08.08.2005, Rs.4,298/- on 25.10.2006, Rs.3,870/- on 05.12.2007, Rs.3,483/- on 16.01.2009, in all Rs.1,11,651/-. After verification of the FD Receipts and the records, it disclosed that balance amount of Rs.31,346.68 is due as on the date of liquidation. As the Bank has been liquidated, Complainant has to approach the Additional Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Bangalore, who is competent Authority in the matter.
(b) In brief versions of OP2 are:-
As per the orders of the concerned, OP1 has been liquidated on 02.06.2004 and this OP has been appointed as Liquidator. Considering the amount remaining in the Bank Account and the amount recovered, this OP as per D.I.C.G.C. Rules has paid the amount to all the depositors pro-rata. As on the date of liquidation, Rs.1,42,997.68 was to be paid to the Complainant, out of which OP1 had paid Rs.1,11,651/- on different dates and the balance is Rs.31,346.68. Without discriminating, all the deposit holders were paid and accordingly Complainant is paid the amount.
3. To substantiate their respective cases, parties had filed their affidavit. Arguments were heard.
4. The points that arise for our consideration are as under:
(A) Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of OPs?
(B) What Order
5. Our answers for the above points are as under:
(A) Positive
(B) As per detailed order for the following reasons
REASONS
6. Point Nos. A & B – Reading the pleadings in conjunction with the affidavit and the documents on record, it is an admitted fact that the Complainant had certain FD & Cash Certificates with OP1 and the same were matured. Meanwhile, because of various reasons, the Government has superseded the OP1 and OP2 has been appointed as Liquidator in the year 2004. It is also an admitted fact that as on the date of liquidation in the year 2004 Complainant was entitled to Rs.1,42,997.68 in all and OP2 has paid Rs.1,11,651/- and balance amount has not been paid. OP2 Bank is paying the amount of the deposit holders as per the scheme and as per the rules.
7. As the OP2 is successor in interest of OP1, it is OP2 who is liable to pay the amount on behalf of OP1 since he is the liquidator. As the full amount is not paid, there is deficiency in service. Hence, we hold the points accordingly and pass the following order:
ORDER
1. Complaint is allowed in part.
2. Ops are directed to pay to the Complainant sum of Rs.31,346/- together with interest thereon @ 12% P.A. from 16.01.2009 until payment within 30 days from the date of this order.
3. Ops are also directed to pay Rs.2,000/- as costs of this litigation to the Complainant.
4. Ops are directed to send the amount to the Complainant as ordered at (2) & (3) above by Demand Draft through RPAD and submit to this Forum the compliance report with necessary documents within 45 days.
5. Send copy of this Order to the parties free of costs.
6. Return extra sets to the parties concerned under the Regulation 20(3) of the Consumer Protection Regulations 2005.
7. Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected and pronounced in the open Forum on this the 27th day of March 2012.
T. NAGARAJA K.G.SHANTALA H.V.RAMACHANDRA RAO
Member Member President
SSS
