Complaint filed on: 14-09-2009<br /> Disposed on: 22-07-2010<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE BANGALORE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT <br /> CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT, NO.8, SAHAKARA BHAVAN, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 052 <br /> <br /> C.C.No.2121/2009<br /> DATED THIS THE 22nd JULY 2010<br /> <br /> PRESENT<br /> <br /> SRI.D.KRISHNAPPA., PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> SRI.GANGANARASAIAH., MEMBER<br /> <br /> SMT. ANITA SHIVAKUMAR. K, MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> Complainant: - Sri.C.R.Bheema Rao,<br /> Aged about 79 years,<br /> S/o. late Rangarao, <br /> Sarojini Road, <br /> Srinivasapura-563 135<br /> Kolar district <br /> <br /> V/s<br /> <br /> Opposite party: - The Secretary, <br /> Manonmayi Credit Co-operative <br /> Society Ltd,<br /> Old No.272/2, New No.275/2,<br /> 9th B Main Road, <br /> Hanumantha Nagar,<br /> Bangalore-560 019<br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> <br /> SRI. D.KRISHNAPPA., PRESIDENT., <br /> <br /> Grievance of the complainant against the opposite party [hereinafter called as OP for short) in brief is, that he is a retired government employee. That himself and his wife were the members of the OP’s society. He had deposited his hard earned money with the OP in fixed deposits amounting to Rs.2,70,000/- and Rs.2,20,000/- in the name of his wife on different dates. The OP has issued deposit certificates. Apart from the above said deposits himself and his wife Late Smt.Sharadha had savings account with the OP in account Nos.207 and 206 respectively as on 8-1-2005 and had cash balance of Rs.9,384/- and 13,811/- in their names respectively. When several deposits made by them are matured and requested the OP to pay matured deposits amount and premature closure of their deposits through letter dated 18-2-2009, for which the OP who has agreed to repay the deposited money through letter dated 22-2-2009 has not repaid so far. That his wife died on 26-5-2007 and the OP therefore by not paying the amounts has caused deficiency in his service. Therefore has prayed for a direction to the OP to refund the deposits money made in his name and also in the name of his wife and also to pay him the balance amounts available in their accounts. <br /> <br /> 2. OP has appeared through his advocate and filed version contending that, the complaint is bad for nonjoinder of necessary parties and that there was large scale mis-appropriation of the society funds by the then president K.Gururaj and secretary K.S.Subramanya and the board of directors had supported them. That this complainant, who is aware of it has to approach the Civil court for the relief. It is further contended that proceedings he has been initiated against the former president and secretary of the OP for mis-appropriation of society fund as reflected from the Audit report of the year 2003-04 and 2004-05. Proceeding has also been initiated before the joint registrar of Co-operative society and the complaint is also filed regarding mis-appropriation to the concerned police and a criminal case has also has been registered. Enquiries are pending against the former president and secretary and also against one Smt.Sandhya and K.Thirumalesh who are wife and brother in law of K.Gururaj who have acquired land at Kunigal taluk and lands are attached by the Joint Registrar of Co-operative and several cheques issued by the OP are bounced and proceedings under section 138 are also initiated. The government had appointed a special officer to look into the affairs of the society. Latter on new office bearers are elected to the OP. Further narrating about its internal problems and disputes has stated that several deposits still not matured. Therefore no deficiency is caused and three fixed deposits stand in the name of the complainant are tune barred. That they are doubting genuiness of the fixed deposit receipts produced. That there is no fund with the OP and therefore has prayed for dismissal of the complaint. <br /> <br /> 3. In the course of enquiry into the complaint, the complainant and president of OP have filed their affidavit evidence reproducing what they have stated in their respective complaint and version. The complainant has produced the original fixed deposit receipts, savings bank account pass book of himself and his wife, death certificate of his wife and the letter of OP dated 22-2-2009 addressed to him. The OP has produced Audit report of OP society for the year 2003-04 and 2004-05, copy of the order passed by the joint registrar of co-operative society. We have heard the counsel for both the parties and perused the records. <br /> <br /> 4. On the above contentions following points for determination arise.<br /> 1. Whether the complainant proves that OP has caused deficiency in his service in not paying the fixed deposit amount made by him and his wife and also in not paying the balance amount in their savings bank account?<br /> 2. To what reliefs, the complainant is entitled to?<br /> <br /> 5. Our findings are as under:<br /> 1. Answer Point No.1: In the affirmative <br /> 2. Answer Point No.2: To see the final order<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> 6. Answer on Point No.1: Before we proceeding to the merits of the case we would like to take up the objections raised by the counsel for the OP in his version and also some points, he canwased in the course of his arguments. The first objection to the complaint, the counsel for the OP submitted that the complaint is not maintainable for nonjoinder of necessary parties. The learned counsel elaborated that one K.Gururaj and K.S.Subramanya were the president and the secretary of the OP, when the complainant made the deposits that they have misappropriated the society amount therefore certain proceedings initiated against them, and they are liable to pay the amount to the complainant and in their absence the complaint is not maintainable and argued then office bearers ought to have been made party to this complaint. We do not find any merits in that argument. Because the secretary of the society being the executive officer of the society represent the society as such the complaint is filed against the secretary is maintainable and if according to the OP the former officer bearers of the society have misappropriated the society fund it is their internal matter of the society and the society will take appropriate action for which the complainant is not to be punished. Therefore we hold that the complaint is well constituted and filed against appropriate party and former officer bearer under facts and circumstances of the case are not necessary parties. <br /> <br /> 7. The counsel for the OP further submitted that the dispute involves lengthy trial requiring recording evidence is a complicated matter cannot be decided in the summary nature enquiry and therefore submitted for directing the complainant to approach the Civil court. He also argued that the OP doubt the genuiness of the fixed deposit receipts and therefore this forum is not competent to decide this complaint and lastly argued that the complainant cannot file this complaint on behalf of his wife as the heir of the deceased wife may at later come to claim the money. The learned counsel in support of these contention relied on the decision reported in II (2009) CPJ 146 of Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Raipur, I (2003) CPJ 271 (NC) and I (2003) CPJ 265 (NC) and another decision reported in I (2003) CPJ 255 (NC). The first decision is with regard to the claim of the complainant as a nominee in the absence of succession certificate. Facts of that case are not to the facts of this case. Because the complainant stand is he had deposited his money in the name of his wife, his wife is dead and they have no issues has not no rebutted. In the second decision, the Hon’ble National Commission was pleased to hold that in the case burglary in a jewellery shop was requiring detailed evidence, therefore held that the matter may be relegated to civil court. In the third decision the Hon’ble National Commission has held the partner of the firm since had not issued public notice for retirement is held as liable as a partner. The fourth decision is of Hon’ble National Commission again has held that the default in payment of loan which is financial mater requiring detailed trial cannot be adjudicated in summary jurisdiction. The dispute before us is a, simplest dispute wherein the complainant has claimed for payment of his fixed deposit money admittedly deposited with the OP which do not require any detailed trial by Civil court. Hence all the objections are rejected. <br /> <br /> 8. OP in his version and also in the affidavit evidence though contended that they are doubting genuiness of the fixed deposit receipts but they have no guts and encourage to stand by it and to disprove the fixed deposit receipts relied upon and produced by the complainant, we see all the fixed deposit receipts which stands in the name of the complainant and some of them are in the name of his wife which are issued in the name of OP society singed by president and secretary, it is not for the complainant or the forum as to who the president and secretary were. The OP has not denied the contents of fixed deposit receipts and signatures of the president and secretary found in them. The evidence of the complainant that these are the fixed deposit receipts issued by the OP society acknowledging the deposits made has remained un-questioned. The learned counsel appearing for the OP called for interrogatories for which the counsel for the complainant has given reply, all the interrogatories raised by the counsel for the OP, in our view have not bearing and can not be entertained. However the counsel for the complainant has given answer to these interrogatories and those answers prove fact of investment and issue of receipts. <br /> <br /> 9. The complainant has produced a letter of the president of society dated 22-2-2009 which is nothing but an acknowledgment, acknowledging their liability to the complainant under FD receipts. The letter reads as under “We acknowledge the receipt of your letter dated nil, requesting for refund of fixed deposits of yours and your wife. All efforts are being made to refund the deposit to all the deposits holders on PRORATA basis as per the directions of Joint Registrar of Co-operative societies, after completion of the statutory Audit for the period 2004-05 which is in progress”. This letter is written and signed by the president of the OP society who has filed version and affidavit evidence in this complaint and is defending the complaint through his advocate. This letter was written by president as a reply to the letter of the complainant dated 8-2-2009 written requesting the OP to pay his deposited amount. This letter of the OP president is nothing but an acknowledge, acknowledging deposits made by the complainant not only in his name but also in the name of his wife. In view of this categorical admission, no further proof is needed to prove the deposits made by the complainant and we hold that the admission is the best evidence. With this all the contention taken by the OP in version and also in affidavit evidence do not stands to scrutiny. <br /> <br /> 10. The counsel for the OP, in the course of his arguments submitted that three deposits of the complainant had matured in the year 2006 and two had matured on 9-1-2006 and another deposit matured on 27-3-2006, then two deposits stand in the name of his wife had matured on 4-3-2006 and 18-3-2006. Therefore, the complaint filed in the year 2009 is barred by limitation so for as, these claims are concerned and submitted and time barred amount cannot be recovered. But as stated above in the letter of the president of OP addressed to the complaint, he has made categorical admission acknowledged even those time barred deposits can not turn back and plead point of limitation. The president in his specific words acknowledging the letter of request for refund of fixed deposit sent by the complainant has promised to pay on PRORATA basis. That being so those deposits can not be held as time barred. Further it could be seen that the complainant has pleaded, he is a not retired employee deposited his hard earned money for leading retired life out of interest it earns. Hard earned money of such a person can not be denied by taking a plea of limitation. Therefore we hold that there is no merit in the arguments of counsel for the OP on this point also. The complainant for his own reasons is at liberty to withdraw his deposits prematurely in addition to claiming the matured deposits. Further the OP is found deficient in not releasing the balance amount stands in the name of the complainant and also his wife in the savings bank account. The OP since has not denied that the complainant’s wife has not left behind any other class one heir, the OP is liable to pay the balance amount available in the savings bank account of the wife of the complainant with this, we answer point no.1 in the affirmative and pass the following order: <br /> O R D E R<br /> The complaint is allowed. OP is directed to pay the maturity value of deposits which have matured as on 9-1-2006 and 27-3-2006, which stand in the name of the complainant and also matured deposits dated 4-2-2006 and 18-3-2006 which are in the name of his wife with interest at 17% per annum interest upto date of maturity and with 18% interest from the date of maturity until those deposits are repaid to the complainant. <br /> <br /> OP is also directed to repay the maturity value of deposits matured on 4-7-2010 and 28-1-2010 which stand in his name and maturity value of deposits matured on 2-12-009 and 4-7-2010 with agreed rate of interest at 15% per annum upto date of maturity and 18% per annum from the date maturity until those payments are made.<br /> <br /> OP is directed to repay the other fixed deposits amount which stand in the name of the complainant and also in the name of his wife with 15% interest as agreed per annum from the date of deposits till they are paid and shall pay within 30 days from the date of this order. Failing which, OP shall repay the fixed deposits amount with 18% interest per annum from the date of this order till the date of payment. OP shall also pay Rs.9384/- and 13811/- which is the credit balance available in the account of the complainant and his wife respectively within 30 days from the date of this order. Failing which, he shall pay interest at 18% per annum from the date of this order till the date of payment. <br /> <br /> OP shall also pay costs of Rs.2000/- to the complainant. <br /> <br /> Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 22nd July 2010.<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />