BEFORE THE  DIST. CONSUMERS DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM;  DHARWAD.

                                 DATE: 22^nd April 2016        

PRESENT:

1) Shri B.H.Shreeharsha       : President

2) Smt.M.Vijayalaxmi             : Member 

Complaint No.: 5/2016  

Complaint No.: 6/2016

Complainant/s:

Shankaracharya s/o.Ramachandrappa Murthy, Age: 68 years, Occ: Retired Teacher, R/o.H.No.33, “Ashirwad”, Block-C, Chanrantimath Garden, Dharwad.

… In CC 5/2016

Shankar K.Kadlaskar,

Age: 70 years, Occ: Retired KEB Employee, R/o.Ramalingeshwar Nagar, Near Durga Temple, Basaveshwar Nagar, Gokul Road, Hubballi.

… In CC 6/2016

(By Sri.N.M.Badiger, Adv.)

v/s

Respondent/s:

1. The President, The Karnataka Vishwabrahma Sahakari Pattin Sangha Niyamita, Raviwar Peth, Dharwad 580001.

(By Sri.A.C.Chakalabbi, Adv.)

2. The Branch Manager, The Karnataka Vishwabrahma Sahakari Pattin Sangha Niyamita, Raviwar Peth, Dharwad 580001.

3. The Secretary, The Karnataka Vishwabrahma Sahakari Pattin Sangha Niyamita, Raviwar Peth, Dharwad 580001.

O R D E R

By: Shri. B.H.Shreeharsha : President.

1.     Since the complaints are filed by the complainants are against the same respondents and as the reliefs sought are the common, for the convenience all the complaints were clubbed together and disposed in a common judgment.

2.     The complainant has filed this complaint claiming for a direction to the respondents to refund the matured FDR amount along with interest @18% P.A together with Rs.1 lakh as compensation and Rs.10000/- towards cost of the proceedings and to grant such other reliefs.

Brief facts of the case are as under:

3.     The case of the complainant is that, the complainants have filed present complaints u/s.12 of CP Act claiming to be refund of the FDR amount deposited under senior citizen scheme with the respondent as detailed :

Despite approach of the complainant subsequent to the maturity the respondent did not refund the amount. Hence, the complainant got issued notice to the respondents calling upon to refund the amount otherwise to approach the court of law. The notice sent returned unclaimed. Non compliance amounts to deficiency in service as such the complainant filed the instant complaint praying for the relief as sought.

4.     In response to the notice issued from this Forum the respondent.1 appeared and contested the matter by filing written version. While the respondent 2 and 3 despite service of notice remained absent. Hence, placing the respondents exparte, exparte proceedings initiated.

5.     The respondent 1 admits the written version in detail denying and disputing the complaint averments contending that the very complaints are not maintainable either in law or on facts and prays for dismissal of the complaint. While the respondent admits the investment amount, issuance of the FDRs. While the respondent denies all the complaint averments and puts the complainant to strict proof of the same. While the answering respondent also denied the assurance to pay the amount while the complainants have approached the respondent and other facts and prays for dismissal of the complaint.

6.     On the said pleadings the following points have arisen for consideration:

1. Whether complainant has proved that there was deficiency in service on the part of respondents ?
2. Whether complainant is entitled to the relief as claimed ?
3. To what relief the complainant is entitled ?

  Both have admits sworn to evidence affidavit. Complainant relied on documents. Both have been Heard. Perused the records.

Finding on points is as under.

1. Affirmatively 
2. Accordingly  
3.  As per order

R E A S O N S

P O I N T S 1 & 2

7.     On going through the pleadings & evidence coupled with documents of both the parties it is evident that there is no dispute with regard to the fact,  the complainants have invested the amount as per the FDR receipts Ex.C1 and Ex.C1 and 2 respectively in the above complaints. Further perusal of the documents Ex.C 2 and 3 legal notices and postal receipts and returned unclaimed postal envelops reveals that the complainants have issued notices to the respondents calling upon to pay the amount but have been returned with the postal endorsement unclaimed. By this it is evident that complainants have demanded for refund of the amount despite of it respondent did not complied and which amounts to deficiency in service and cause results for cause of action to the instant complaints. Hence, complainants have established the case of deficiency in service by the respondents. Accordingly complainants are entitled to FDR amount and for the reliefs claimed.

8.     In view of the above discussions we have arrived and proceed to held issue.1 and 2 in affirmative and accordingly.

9.     Point.3: In view of the finding on points 1 and 2 proceeded to pass the following 

O R D E R

        Complaints are partly allowed. The respondents 1 to 3 are jointly and severally to refund the maturity value of the FDRs  with interest @9% P.A. thereon from the date of maturity till realization along with Rs.1,000/- in each case towards cost of the proceedings within 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Failing to comply the same within stipulated period the said amount shall carry further interest @10% P.A. thereon till realization.

Original order be kept in CC 5/16 & its copy in CC 6/16.

(Dictated to steno, transcribed by him and edited by us and pronounced in the open Forum on this day on 22^nd day of April 2016)

(Smt.M.Vijayalaxmi)                                      (Sri.B.H.Shreeharsha)

Member                                                           President

Dist.Consumer Forum                                    Dist.Consumer Forum

MSR