BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE (ADDL. BENCH)

DATED THIS THE 22^nd DAY OF JANUARY, 2024

PRESENT

SRI.RAVISHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER

SMT.SUNITA C. BAGEWADI, MEMBER

Appeal No.736/2019 TO 739/2019

1.      Appeal No.736/2019

Mr.Seetharama Gowda

S/o Krishnappa Gowda

Aged about 47 years,

R/o. Kinnigadde House,

Ananthady post and Village                            ...Appellant/s

Bantwal Taluk, D.K. District

(By Smt.Manjula.N.A., Advocate)

2.      Appeal No.737/2019

Mr.Lingappa Gowda,

S/o late Deranna Gowda,

Aged about 72 years,

R/o. Karambar House,

Sarve Village Puttut Taluk,

D.K. District

(By Smt.Manjula.N.A., Advocate)

3.      Appeal No.738/2019

Mrs.Sumalatha

W/o Mr.K.Seetharama Gowda

Aged about 37 years,

R/o. Kinnigadde House,

Ananthady post and Village                            ...Appellant/s

Bantwal Taluk, D.K. District

(By Smt.Manjula.N.A., Advocate)

4.      Appeal No.739/2019

Mrs.Umavathi,

S/o Lingappa Gowda,

Aged about 57 years,

R/o. Karambar House,

Sarve Village Puttut Taluk,

D.K. District

(By Smt.Manjula.N.A., Advocate)

-V/s-

1.     Appeal No.736/2019 to 739/2019

        1.     The Managing Trustee/

General Manager,

Vruddhi Credit Souhards

Souhards Sahakari Niyamitha,         ... Respondent/s

2^nd Floor, Johnline Complex,

Madanthyar, Belthangady,

D.K.District

2.     Mr.Vinay Naik,

        S/o Mr.Balakrishna Naik,

The President of Vruddhi

Credit Souhards Sahakari

Niyamitha, R/o. Pocchaje House,

Kavala Padoor village,

Vogga post, Kavalapadoor,

Bantwal

... Respondent/s

3.     Mr.Suresh Shetty,

        S/o. Dharnappa Shetty,

The Vice-President of Vruddhi

Credit Souhards Sahakari

Niyamitha, R/o. Poovala House,

Arambody village,

Siddakatte post, Bantwal Taluk,

4.     Mr.Manikraj Jain,

        S/o Jinnaraj Hegde,

R/o. Mangaje House,

Kavalapadoor village,

Vogga post, Kavalapadoor,

Bantwal

5.     Mr.Suresh Poojary,

        S/o Sundara Poojary,

R/o. Jakribettu House,

Bantwal Kasaba Billage,

Bantwal Taluk

6.     Mr.Jayaram Nayak,

        S/o Shamanna Nayak,

R/o. Dhandibettu,

Mulkage Mada House and post, 

Devasya Muddor village,

Bantwal taluk

7.     Mr.Lokesh Acharya,

        S/o Ananthayya Acharya,

        R/o. Savithri Nilaya,

Punjalkatte post, Bantwal Taluk,

8.     Mr.Harish Prabhu,

S/o Keshava Prabhu,

        R/o. Gundiddamane house,

        Badagga Kajekari Village and Post,

        Bantwal taluk

9.     Mr.Survay Narayan Naik,

        S/o Gopalkrishna Naik,

        R/at Magaladama,

        Kalladka post, Bantwal Taluk,

10.   Charishma Madivala,

        Accountant,

Vruddhi Credit Souhards

Souhards Sahakari Niyamitha,         .. Respondent/s

2^nd Floor, Johnline Complex,

Madanthyar, Belthangady,

D.K.District

11.   The General Manager,

Vruddhi Credit Souhards

Souhards Sahakari Niyamitha,         

2^nd Floor, Johnline Complex,

Madanthyar, Belthangady,

D.K.District

(Respondents are common in all the appeals)

(Respondent No.3-By Sri.G.Ravishankar, Advocate)

(Respondent Nos.1, 2, 4 to 11- Absent)

C O M M O N   O R D E R

BY SMT.SUNITA C. BAGEWADI, MEMBER

The Appellants/Complainants being aggrieved by the common order dated 7-4-2019 passed by the District Consumer Commission, Dakshina Kannada in Complaint Nos.234/2017 to 237/2017 respectively.

          2. The Appellants/Complainants are different and Respondents are the same in all these Appeals and the facts involved in these Appeals are one and the same.  Hence, these Appeals are taken up together and are being disposed of by a common order.  

          3. The brief facts of the complaints are that the respective complainants believing the word of the OPs, have deposited with the OPs as detailed below;

After the maturity period, the complainants had approached the OPs by requesting them to refund the amount on several occasions but of no use. Hence, these complaints seek relief as claimed in the complaints.

          4. After service of version notice, the OP No.3 and 5 appeared through their counsels and filed version. Despite service of version notice, the OP Nos. 1, 2, 4, 6 to 11 remained absent, hence they are placed exparte.

          5.      The OP No.3 in the version submits that the allegations made in the complaints are all not true, valid and binding on this OP and denied specifically that he is Vice-President of Vruddhi Credit Souharda Sahakari Niyamitha/ OP No.1 and he is engaged in the business of the 1^st OP in accepting deposits from the customers, wherein he has assured the depositors that they will be paid interest not less than 11.05% on their deposits and on such trust the complainants have deposited his hard earned money with the 1^st OP for the period detailed in the table above.

          Further the Election Officer namely G.Robert D’Souza has made election notification for election to the board of directors of 1^st OP for the period 2011-12 to 2015-16 to be held on 24-10-2011 and after scrutiny of nominations filed as per his notifications the said election officer has announced final list of candidates and as the candidates in the final list were equivalent to the number of the post of directors to be elected, all the candidates shown in the final list dated 20-10-2011 pronounced by said election officer were elected as directors of 1^st OP and said list does not contain the name of 3^rd OP and this OP has never elected as director of 1^st OP. As such question of becoming Vice President of 1^st OP does not arise at all.

          6. The OP No.5 in the version denied the allegations made in the complaints and further submits that the amount claimed is excessive. That the 2^nd OP has opened the OP No.1 society and he has suo-motu added the name of this OP as it is one of the directors without consulting this OP and never participated in the meetings of the OP No.1 nor taken in its participation and never signed the meeting book of the 1^st OP. It is submitted that for the alleged misdeeds of the 2^nd OP and 5^th OP is not liable in any manner. Hence, prays to dismiss the complaints against the 5^th OP.  

          7.  After trial, the District Consumer Commission has allowed the complaints in part. The OP Nos.1, 2 & 4 to 11 are jointly and severally directed to pay the maturity value of the fixed deposit receipts to the respective complaints as detailed in above table with interest @6% p.a. from the date of maturity till the date of payment. Case against the OP No.3 (Suresh Shetty) is hereby dismissed.  Further the complainant in each cases are directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- to the OP No.3 as cost.

8. Being aggrieved by the said order, the Appellants/complainants have filed these Appeals before this Commission.

9. Heard the arguments.

10. Perused the appeal memo, the order passed by the District Consumer Commission; we noticed that, it is not in dispute that, the complainants have deposited the some amounts in fixed deposits as per the Ex.C1 with the 1^st respondent society for a period of 12 months. The allegations of the appellants are that, after maturity they had approached the respondents and made several requests/communications to refund the matured fixed deposits amount. However, the respondents have not refunded the same. Per-contra, the 3^rd respondent contended that, he is not necessary party to the complaints because he was neither the Director nor the Vice-President of the 1^st respondent society, he is not accepting the deposits from the appellants and not assured that he will pay interest not less than 11.05% on their fixed deposit receipts.

11. Perused the appeals memo, the grounds for the appeals of the appellants are that, without considering the evidence and documents issued by the respondent No.11 only, the District Commission dismissed the complaint against the 3^rd respondent, though the documents clearly established that the 3^rd respondent was a Vice-President of the 1^st respondent society. Further no order to cost and compensation was awarded by the commission for deficiency of service on the part of the respondents for loss suffered to the appellants due to deficiency of service of respondents. Hence, the order of District Commission is illegal.

12. Perused the order passed by the District Commission and documents produced by both parties, we noticed that the District Commission has allowed the complaints in part against the respondent Nos.1, 2 & 4 to 11 and directed them to pay jointly and severally the maturity value of the fixed deposit receipts with 6% interest per annum from the date of maturity, till the date of payment and the complaints against the 3^rd respondent/Suresh Shetty is here by dismissed. Further imposed cost of Rs.5,000/-on all the appellants/complainants payable to the respondent No.3.

13. Perused the order passed by the District Commission, the District Commission has rightly appreciated that the respondent Nos.1, 2 & 4 to 11 are jointly and severally liable to pay the maturity value of the fixed deposits receipts with 6% interest per annum from the date of maturity and dismissed the complaints against the 3^rd respondent. We agree with the order passed by the District Commission, because perused the document Ex.C4, list of directors in which the name of the 3^rd respondent is mentioned as Vice-President of the society.  However, it is a letter head of the society and not bears any sign of the authorized person or seal of the Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Society. Per-contra perused Ex.R4 dated 4-8-2018, the information furnished by the Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Society, Mangaluru division, we noticed that the 3^rd respondent was not elected director of 1^st respondent society and this document is issued by the Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Society. Hence, in our opinion, the 3^rd respondent is not necessary party to the proceedings.

14. The appellants have deposited the some amounts in the Fixed Deposits Receipts with the 1^st respondent society and after maturity in spite of several requests the respondents have not refunded the same which amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the respondents. However, the District Commission has not awarded any compensation for deficiency in service. The District Commission has to impose some compensation to spread message not only to the respondents but other such institutions.

15. Hence, considering the facts discussion made here, we are of the opinion that the order passed by the District Commission requires modification and it is right to direct the respondents to pay jointly and severally compensation of Rs.20,000/- and Rs.10,000/- cost of litigation in each complaints to the complainants. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following:-

O R D E R

The appeals are disposed off with modification. 

The impugned order dated 7-3-2019 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Dakshina Kannada in CC.No.234/2017 to 237/2017 are modified as under;

The OP Nos.1, 2 & 4 to 11 are joint and severally directed to pay the maturity value of the fixed deposit receipts to the respective complaints as detailed in below table with interest @6% per annum from the date of maturity till the date of payment.

Further, complainant in each cases are directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- to the OP No.3 as cost.

Further the OP Nos.1, 2 & 4 to 11 are joint and severally directed to pay Rs.20,000/- as a compensation for deficiency of service and Rs.10,000/- litigation cost in each complaints to the complainants.

Further the OP Nos.1, 2 & 4 to 11 are joint and severally directed to comply the above order within 45 days from the date of receipt of the order. 

Send a copy of this order to both parties as well as Concerned District Commission.

Keep the original of this order in appeal No.736/2019 and copies thereof in connected files.

MEMBER                                                  JUDICIAL MEMBER