Karnataka

Belgaum

CC/59/2015

Rudrayya B Toragalmath - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

S I Adin

06 Dec 2016

ORDER

                

ADDITIONAL  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BELAGAVI

C.C.No.59/2015

                     Date of filing: 28/01/2015

                                                                  Date of disposal:06/12/2016

 

P R E S E N T :-

 

	(1)	Shri. A.G.Maldar, B.Com,LL.B. (Spl.) President.
	(2)	Smt.J.S. Kajagar, B.Sc. LLB. (Spl.)  Lady Member.

 

 

COMPLAINANT   -

Shri.Rudrayya S/o Basayya Toragalmath, Age: 40 Years, Occ: Business, R/o: Ugargol, Tq: Saudatti, Dist. Belgaum.                     (Rep. by Miss.S.I.Adin, Adv.)

 

- V/S -

 

OPPOSITE PARTIES  -

1.         2.         3.     4.

The President, Katkol Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Katkol, Tq: Ramdurg, Dist. Belgaum.   The Chairman, Katkol Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Katkol, Tq: Ramdurg, Dist. Belgaum.                         (Ex-parte Op.No.1 & 2)   The Manager, Katkol Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Katkol, Tq: Ramdurg, Dist. Belgaum.   The Liquidator, Katkol Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Katkol, Tq: Ramdurg, Dist. Belgaum.                      (Rep. by Sri. P.R. Kulkarni, Adv.                                           for Op.No.3 & 4)

JUDGEMENT

 

By  Sri.A.G. Maldar, President.

 

 

1)       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) After issue of notice to the Opponents, the Op.No.1 & 2 have neither appeared nor filed any version before this Forum. The opponent No.1 & 2 are placed Ex-parte and the OP.No.3 appeared through his Counsel and not filed any written version and the opponent No.4 has appeared through his Counsel and resisted the claim of the complainant is false, frivolous and vexatious OP.No.4 in the version has contended that, the complainant made false and incorrect allegations. The OPs bank has liquidated, the R.B.I. has cancelled the license 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,

 

1. Whether the complainant have proved that there is deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and entitled to the reliefs sought?

 

2. What Order?

 

6)      Our findings on the above points are as fallows;

 

 

1. Affirmative.
2. As per final Order.

 

:: R E A S O N S ::

 

          7) The complainant’s claim that, he had kept fixed deposit of Rs.2,40,786/- with the OPs. bank and he was entitled to Rs.2,40,786/-. Out of Rs.2,40,786/- a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- the D.I.C.G.C. has been paid on 02.11.2010 to the complainant and still remained balance is Rs.1,40,786/-. For this, the OPs bank represented by the Liquidator has issued balance certificate No. 920 dated: 02/11/2010. The OP.No.4 contended that, there is no privity of contract and that the complainant is not a consumer and this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint. In order to prove this contention, the OPs have not furnish any material document to accept the contention contended in written version and affidavit evidence. Therefore, OPs have failed to establish as alleged in the objection. Therefore, in our opinion, the contention contended by the OPs could not accept and the said contention has no force or merit.

 

The complainant has proved the deficiency of service on the part of the OPs by filing the affidavit evidence and material document i.e. the original Balance Certificate is on record for our shake of convenience which is marked as
Ex.P-2. These facts pleaded in the complaint and stated by the complainant are not disputed by the OP No.4. Hence, the said balance of Rs.1,40,786/- payable to the complainant by the OPs bank is proved, for that proposition of law, we would like to refer a decision of Hon’ble Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai in 2010 (1) CPR 62. Wherein the Hon’ble State Commission observe that, non-refund of maturity amount of F.D. amount amounts to deficiency of service attracting Sec.2(1) (g) of C.P. Act and further observe that, Consumer Forum have jurisdiction to entertain complaint against the Co-Operative Societies.  In the law laidown by Hon’ble Supreme Court and National Commission regarding maintainability of complaint, it is aptly applicable to this case.  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       

          8) There is no dispute that, the OPs bank has been liquidated, thereafter the Liquidator has been appointed U/s 73 of the Karnataka Co-Operative Societies Act to discharge his legal duties as per Sec.74 (d). The OP.No.4 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 license of the OPs 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.No.4 that, the complaint is not maintainable for non-joinder of parties, cannot be accepted.

 

          9) Further Op.No.4 contended 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 OPs bank and the complainant have availed the banking service of the OPs. Therefore, the OPs bank is represented by the Liquidator and the Claim and grievance of the complainant is not against the Liquidator directly, but it is against the OPs bank. Hence, in our consider view that, the complainant is consumer and the complaint is maintainable.

 

          10) Further also the OP.No.4 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 OPs 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 OPs bank. 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 their statutory duties 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 cannot be appreciated and accepted.

 

          11) It is pertinent to note that, even according to the Liquidator of the OPs 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 OPs 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. Therefore, in our consider view that, the Liquidator has to satisfy the claim of the complainant.

 

It is not at all the contention of the Liquidator that, the asset of the OPs bank is not sufficient to discharge the claim of the complainant. Hence, the OPs bank represented by the Liquidator is answerable to the claim of the complainant as alleged in the complaint. However, the complainant has approached the OPs Bank for remaining balance an amount of Rs.1,40,786/- towards F.D. Hence, in our opinion that, the complainant is entitled the remaining balance amount of F.D. amount with interest @ 7% p.a. from the date of balance certificate issued i.e. 02.11.2010 and also entitled Rs.2,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.1,000/- towards cost of litigation with this we answer to Point No.1 in Affirmative.

 

12.    Point No: 2:- With these findings on Point No.1, we proceed to pass the following;

 

 

:: O R D E R ::

 

         

For the reason discuss above, the complaint filed by the complainant U/s 12 of the C.P. Act – 1986 is here by partly allowed with costs.

 

          The OP. Co-Operative  represented by the Liquidator, President, Chairman and Manager as shown in the cause title are jointly and severally are directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,40,786/- towards balance of the F.D. amount as per balance certificate to the complainant with interest @ 7% P.A. from the date of balance certificate issued i.e. 02/11/2010 till realization. 

 

          Further, the OP. Co-Operative  represented by the Liquidator, President, Chairman and Manager as shown in the cause title are jointly and severally are directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.1,000/- towards cost of the proceedings.

 

          The order shall be complied within 08 weeks from the date of this order.

 

If the order is not complied within 08 weeks from the date of this order, the complainant is entitled to recover with Additional interest @1.5% p.a. from the date of complaint till its realization.

 

 

            (This order is dictated to the Stenographer, transcript edited, corrected and then pronounced in the open forum on this 06^th day of December, 2016).

 

 

Sri. A.G.Maldar,     President.

Smt. J.S. Kajagar,    Lady Member.