Karnataka

Gadag

CC/11/2016

Neelappa Rangappa Kalasapur & others. - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Managing Director, Samradha Jeevan Multi State Multi Purpose Cooperative Society Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

B.B.Magadi

29 Dec 2018

ORDER

 O R D E R

JUDGEMENT DELIVERED BY SMT.SAMIUNNISA.C.H., PRESIDENT:

        This complaint is filed by the complainants against the OPs claiming certain reliefs by invoking Sec 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

        2.       The averments of the complaints in brief are:

             The above complaints filed by the complainant, states that they have deposited the amounts with OPs/Society as below table:

 

 

 

Complainant Number	Date of starting of deposit	Total amount deposited	Sale registration certificate
Complainant No.1	18-10-2015	Rs.25,000/-	3384118
Complainant No.2	15-11-2015	Rs.20,000/-	3455357
Complainant No.3	27-08-2015	Rs.25,000/-	1480094
Complainant No.4	25-10-2015	Rs.25,000/-	3384480
Complainant No.5	15-12-2015	Rs.25,000/-	3361351

It is further averred that, the complainants are poor agriculturists and coolies, due to drought in their area they are very much in need of money.  Hence they approached the OPs to pay the fixed deposit amount; the OPs postponed the same on one or the other pretext.  This act of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service.  Hence the complainant got issued legal notice on         15-02-2016, the OPs have received the same, but they neither paid the amount nor replied the same.  Therefore the complainants No.1 to 5 jointly filed this complaint against the OPs claiming to return of the deposited amount together with compensation of Rs.50,000/-each towards mental agony  and Rs.20,000/-towards loss caused to each of them. 

3.      The Forum registered a case and issued a notice to the OPs. After service of the notices the OP-1 and 2 appeared through their counsel, but not filed written version.  After impleading OP No.3-Liquidator, as necessary party and after issuing notice to the OP No.3 by this Forum, he has also not filed any version.  Hence the written version, evidence and written argument of the OPs is taken as not filed.

4.      The complainant No.3 has filed his chief affidavit on behalf of all the complainants along with 10 documents which are marked as EX C1 to C10 in support of their case. The documents are as follows:

 

EX C1	FD Receipt of complainant No.1
ExC2	FD Receipt of complainant No.2
EX C3	FD Receipt of complainant No.3
ExC4	FD Receipt of complainant No.4
EX C5	FD Receipt of complainant No.5
EX C6	Receipt For having received the F.D.
EX C7	Copy of legal notice.
Ex.C8 to 10	Postal receipts.

5.      On the basis of above said pleadings, oral and documentary evidence, the following points arises for adjudications are as follows:  

1.	Whether the Complainant proves that there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opponents as per CP Act?
2.   3.	Whether complainant is entitled to get the relief prayed for?                                              What Order?

Our Answer to the above points are:-

Point No.1 – Affirmative

Point No.2 – Partly Affirmative

Point No.3 - As per the final order.

 

R E A S O N S

6.      POINT NO.1 and 2:  Since both the points are inter-link and identical, we proceed with both the points together.

7.      To substantiate this points complainants tender the documents i.e., Ex.C-1 to C-10. That the complainants when approach to collect their amount of Rs.25,000/- each, the OPs have not paid the amount.  Hence the complainants issued the notice to the OP’s, i.e., Ex.C-7, demanding to repay their amount and in this notice the complainants mentioned that they had already produced all the necessary documents before OP’s.   

          8.   Unfortunately when the complainants approached the OPs for the refund of amount paid by them, instead of returning the amount as per the submission of the complainants, they

 

stopped responding that the complainants had got the knowledge that all the OP’s are trying to close their all branches throughout India. Hence the Complainants had issued the legal notice through their counsel to all the OPs. The said notice served to Op’s but OPs have not replied to said notice, nor refunded any amount to the complainants. Hence act of the Op’s clearly shows the deficiency in service, belief of trust and unfair trade practice towards the complainant. Due to this act of the Op’s, the complainant suffered financial loss and mental agony.      

9.      On 16.12.2016 Op’s advocate filed a memo along with the order of Government Of India, Minister of agriculture and farmers Welfare Dept, of Agriculture, Co-Operation and farmers welfare (Office of Central registrar of Co-operative Society) issued an order U/S 86 of Multi state Co-operative society act, appointed the one Mr. Ashish Kumar Bhutani as a liquidator to Samrudh Jeevan Multi State and Multipurpose Co-Operative Ltd, has taken the charge of the society. But the said liquidator was not present before the forum and even appoints a council on behalf of him. After impleading as a party to the proceeding after lot of correspondence on 16.08.2018 another liquidator by name Satish. S. Krishna sagar liquidator Samrudhi Jeevan Multi State and Multipurpose Co-Operative Society, Pune, sent a corresponding letter and answered that at present the society had been closed by SEBI and he undertakes that, after breaking open of the lock of the

Company he may have arrange to repay the amount paid by the complainant, mean time advocate for Op No.3 filed retirement memo.

         10.   The complainant No.1, 4 and 5 had deposited an amount of Rs.25,000/- in one shot as per the terms and conditions of the OPs and complainant no.2 paid Rs.20,000/- to the Op’s on 27.08.2015, but to say that the complainant no.2 paid the Rs.25,000/- as per the submission made in the Complaint cannot be acceptable without cogent documents but, on the  other hand Complainant No.2 in her rearing contract register letter it has been mentioned Rs.15,000/- but, this Complainant filed a temporary sale agreement acknowledge slip in which it has been mentioned clearly she had paid rs.25,000/;- in other Complainants i.e. 1,4, &

 

5 furnished the documents i.e EX C1, C4 7 C5 speaks about the fact, hence we only consider raring contract register letter EX C-2 there is first installment receipt in which amount has been mentioned only Rs.20,000/- hence we appreciate EX C2.

It is very clear that the OP’s made unfair trade practice and deficiency in service while rendering his service, since forum came to the conclusion that the complainants are entitled for compensation along with their paid up amount.    Hence we answer the point No.1 in the affirmative and point No.2 in partly affirmative. 

11.    POINT NO.3:  For the reasons and discussion made above and finding on the above points, we proceed to pass following: 

//ORDER//

1. This Complaint is partly allowed.
2. OP’s are jointly and severally liable to pay amount of Rs.25,000/-to the complainant no.1, 3, 4 & 5 and Rs.20,000/- to Complainant no.2 within one month with interest @ 6 % from the date of filing this complaint.
3. Failing which OPs are liable to pay interest @ 12 % p.a., from the date of filing till the realization.
4. Further OPs are liable to pay compensation of Rs.25,000/- to the complainants and Rs.2,000/- towards cost of litigation.
5. Send the copies of this Order to the parties free of cost.

 (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and then pronounced by me in the Open Court day of 29^th December, 2018)

                    

 

           (Shri B.S.Keri)                                                (Smt.C.H.Samiunnisa Abrar)

              Member                                                                      President