Complaint filed on: 25-01-2022

                                                      Disposed on: 30-11-2022

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, TUMAKURU

DATED THIS THE 30^st DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022

PRESENT

SMT.G.T.VIJAYALAKSHMI, B.Com., LLM., PRESIDENT

SRI.KUMARA.N, B.Sc. (Agri), LLB., MBA., MEMBER

SMT.NIVEDITA RAVISH, B.A., LLB.(Spl)., LADY MEMBER

Consumer Complaint No.35/2022 

Smt. Shivamma W/o B.Shivanna

Aged about 73 years,

R/o Aralikere Village & at Post,

Kasaba Hobli, Turuvekere Taluk,

Tumakuru District.

(By Sri.T.S.Niranjan, Advocate)

V/s

1.       The President,

          Prathamika Krushi Pattina Sahakara

          Sangha Niyamitha, Madihalli,

          Turuvekere Taluk, Tumakuru District.

2.       The Chief Executive Officer,

          Prathamika Krushi Pattina Sahakara

          Sangha Niyamitha, Madihalli,

          Turuvekere Taluk, Tumakuru District.

(By Sri.R.Thippeswamy, Advocate)

O R D E R:

SMT.G.T.VIJAYALAKSHMI, PRESIDENT

This complaint was filed by the complainant against the Opposite Parties 1 & 2 under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 with a prayer to direct the OPs 1 & 2 to pay Fixed Deposit amount of Rs.6,13,270/- with interest @ 18% PA from the date of maturity and also pays to directs the OPs to pay compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- to the complainant towards mental agony and pain caused by the OPs along with cost.

2.       It is the case of complainant that as per the request of the OPs and assurance to made the payment immediately after the maturity she had deposited the amount with the OPs as under:

The complainant further submitted that after expiry of the maturity date i.e. 18.09.2021, the complainant requested the OPs to return the maturity amount since the said amount is legally recovered and is very much required for her personal and legal necessity, but the OPs instead of returning the said amount showed hostile attitude with one or the other reasons and also not made any arrangements to return the maturity amount.  Hence, the complainant issued legal notice through RPAD, but the OPs have not claimed the said legal notice and returned with shara “PARTY ABSENT.  Hence, being aggrieved by the attitude of the OPs and deficiency in service on the part of OPs, filed this complaint. 

3.       In spite of service of notice the OP Nos. 1 & 2 appeared through their counsel and filed version, wherein the OP Nos. 1 & 2 contended that they are not liable to pay the amount/compensation to the complainant as because the OP No.1 was recently become President and OP No.2 has taken charge on 30.09.2021.   One Mr. A.P.Prakash, Chief Administrative Officer since from 2007 has mis-appropriated the funds of the society without bring the knowledge of the President and Directors and also without consent of the Society has absconded with the amount of the Society and also remained absent to the meetings conducted by the Society.  It is further contended that the said Society has issued notice to the A.P.Prakash asking him to produce the financial data and regarding absent to the meetings conducted by the Society, but the said A.P. Prakash reaming absent, therefore, one Sri. K.H.Harish deputed as in-charge on 30.09.2021.  Thereafter Assistant Registrar of Co-Operative Department has appointed one Mr.G.P.Basavarajaiah to write the account books. It is further contended that the then Chief Executive Officer Sri. A.P.Prakash has given a consent letter on 08.07.2021 stating that he is responsible for Rs.90,00,000/-, when such being the case, the OPs are not liable to pay the amount and moreover, the complainant has not made the elected Directors to the proceedings.  The OPs admitted the F.D. kept by the complainant, but requested to consider the period of F.D. kept by the complainant.  It is further contended that the complainant has filed this complaint by suppressing the real facts.  Hence, prays to dismiss the complaint.

 4.      The complainant counsel filed affidavit in lieu of evidence and marked the documents at Ex.P1 to P6.  On behalf of OPs, one Sri. D.S.Anandmurthy, President of the OPs filed affidavit evidence.

5.       On hearing the arguments of learned counsel for complainant and OPs and perusal of the documents, the points that would arise for determination are as under;

1. Whether the complainant proves the deficiency of service on the part of OPs?

2. Is complainant entitled to the relief sought for?

6.        Our findings aforesaid points are as under:

Point No.1: Partly in the affirmative  

Point No.2: As per the final order

:REASONS:

7. Point Nos.1 and 2: The learned counsel for the complainant submitted that, the OPs have failed to return the deposited amount and interest amount. The complainant in the affidavit evidence reiterated the averments of complaint.

8.  To prove the case, the complainant has produced Ex.P1/xerox copy of the bonds, Ex.P2/ is the main page cop of the Passbook, Ex.C3 is the complainant’s Aadhar copy, Ex.P4 is the Legal notice Ex.P5&P64/RPAD receipt and acknowledgment.

9.       It is seen from the records that the complainant has deposited an amount of Rs.1,85,000/- on 16/05/2018 and renewed the maturity amount of Rs.2,04,425/- on 27/12/2019 and again renewed the maturity amount of Rs.2,23,845/- on 17/07/2020 for interest @ 9% PA.

10.     The counsel for complainant submits at the time of arguments that though the complainant requested the OPs several times to pay maturity amount, but the OPs did not pay the maturity amount.  Hence, the complainant issued legal notice on 20.11.2021, but the legal notice issued by the complainant was not claimed by the OPs. 

Per contra, the OPs contended that, the OP Nos. 1 & 2 has taken charge on 30.09.2021 and one Mr. A.P.Prakash, CEO, since from 2007 has mis-appropriated the funds of the society and the Society has issued notice  to A.P.Prakash. Later, Sri. A.P. has given a consent letter on 08.07.2021 stating that he is responsible for Rs.90,00,000/-, when such being the case the OPs are not liable to pay the amount as claimed by the complainant.  But, it is the internal matter between the A.P. Prakash and Society and it does not affect the rights of the depositors and the OPs are liable to pay the deposit amount to the complainant.  When OPs admit the Fixed Deposit, it is bounden duty of the OPs to return after maturity/after request by the complainant.  If fails to return the F.D. Amount after receiving from the complainants amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OPs.  Therefore, it is just and proper to direct the OPs to pay F.D. amount with interest @ 8% PA from the date of maturity to till realization.  

11. Due to the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice of the OPs, the complainant compelled to approach this Commission.  Hence, the complainant is entitled for compensation of Rs.10,000-00 towards mental agony suffered by the complainant and Rs.10,000-00 towards litigation of the cost. In the result, we proceed to pass the following;

:ORDER:

The complaint filed by complainant is allowed in part. 

The OPs 1 & 2 are jointly and severally directed to pay Rs.2,43,990/- with interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of maturity i.e. 19.05.2021 to till its realization.

Further, the OP Nos. 1 & 2 are jointly and severally directed to pay Rs.10,000/- towards compensation and Rs.10,000/- towards cost to the complainant.

It is ordered that the above order shall be complied by the OP Nos. 1 & 2 jointly and severally within 45 days from the date of receipt/knowledge of the order.

Supply free copy of this order to both parties.