Karnataka

Belgaum

CC/643/2014

Sunita D Patil - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Secretary of Krishna Vivadha Uddeshgala Saha Sangh Nyt - Opp.Party(s)

P.J.Gangai

30 Nov 2015

ORDER

 ( Order dictated by Smt. Sunita, Member )

COMMON ORDER

            I. Though the complainants are different, their grievances, allegations and the facts pleaded are same except the details of the deposits by the respective complainants. The complainants belong to one family. In all the cases the opponents are same, represented by Secretary and Chairman. Hence for convenience all the cases are disposed of by the common order.

          II. Since there are 3 cases and same number complainants are there having same addresses and particulars of their deposits being different, for brevity and also for clarity and to avoid confusion, names of the parties of the particular case only will be shown in the cause title and the details of the deposits will be shown separately in the annexure.

          1) The relevant facts of the cases are that the respective complainants have filed the complaints u/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 against the O.Ps. alleging deficiency in banking service of non refund of the fixed deposits/deposit.

          2) After service of notice O.P.1 and 2 appeared through counsel and filed objection and evidence of affidavit and denied entire contents of the complaint except deposit etc.,

          3) In support of the claim in the complaint, complainant/s has filed affidavit and original F.D.Rs. is produced by the complainant/s. The complainant/s are claiming matured F.D.Rs. and certain documents.

          4) We have heard the arguments and perused the records.

          5) Now the point for our consideration is that whether the complainant/s has proved deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. and entitled to the reliefs sought?

          6) Our finding on the point is partly in affirmative, for the following reasons.

:: R E A S O N S ::

          7) The complainant/s contended that deceased complainant/s was father of complainant No.2 and 3 and husband of complainant No.1 and had saved money in F.D.Rs. and which can be released immediately after its maturity. The complainant further contended that after the death of Sri.Devegouda his wife Smt. Sunita that is complainant No.1 had personally approached and requested the opponents society to return the F.D.Rs. matured amount. The O.Ps. went on postponing the same and fail to return the F.D. amount. The complainant/s further contended that opponents are duty bound to return F.D.R. amount whenever demanded and non returning of the amount, after maturity amounts to deficiency of service as per C. P. Act. The complainant/s further states that due to the deficiency of service part of O.ps. the complainant/s could not solve domestic and financial problem and suffered mental and monetarily and prayed for compensation for Rs.50,000/-. The complainant/s further contended that on 8/7/2014, complainant/s issued legal notice to O.Ps. and same was served and O.Ps. replied to their counsel denying all contents of complainant/s but admitting the deposit. The complainant/s prayed to released the matured F.D.R. amount directing O.Ps. and also compensation as claimed in the complainant/s.

          8) On the other hand, the O.ps. filed objection and evidence of affidavit contending and denying the contents of the complainant/s except the deposits and the complainant No.1 is the class one legal heir of Sri.Devegouda. The opponents further contended that the complainant/s had no any domestic problems and she has not approached and requested the O.Ps. society to return the said F.D.R. amount. The O.Ps. further contended that the deceased complainant was one of the director of O.P. society and during his tenureship as director he misuse of the power vested with him and without the consent of the managing committee members, he sanctioned loan to about 11 persons on his own risk. Now these 11 persons are chronic defaulter. Since he has sanctioned the loan on his individual risk, the O.Ps. have liberty to recover the loan from out of deposits made by deceased complainant Shri. Devegouda. In view of these undertaking by the deceased complainant all managing committee members of O.Ps. society held a meeting and have passed resolution that effect “Fixed deposit amount is withheld till recovery of due amount.” The O.ps. further contented that after the death of Sri. Devegouda the complainant Smt. Sunita is the present Director of the society and is well aware of the facts. Hence the complainant/s cannot fall within ambit of consumer and the complaint filed by her is only with the wicked intention of defaming the O.P. society. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

          9) From the evidence on record it has been proved that the deceased Devegouda has deposited the amount in O.P. Society in F.D.R/s. in the respective accounts and for the respective some mentioned in the F.D.R/s. The maturity value, the amount deposited and the dates are shown in the table below;

Sl. No.	Complaint No.	FDR No.	Date of deposit	Amount deposited	Date of maturity	Maturity amount
1	2	3	4	5	6	7
1)	642/2014	000455	5/7/2006	2,000	5/7/2013	4,000
		000484	2/4/2007	5,000	2/4/2014	10,000
		000428	16/2/2006	5,000	16/2/2013	10,000
		000310	31/7/2003	2,000	31/10/2008	4,000
		000617	25/7/2007	8,000	25/7/2008	19,800
		000394	21/2/2005	2,000	21/2/2011	4,000
		000407	11/4/2005	2,000	11/4/2011	4,000
		000385	7/2/2005	6,000	7/2/2011	12,000
		000400	24/3/2005	5,000	24/3/2011	10,000
		000383	22/12/2004	12,000	22/12/2010	24,000
		000337	2/1/2004	3,200	2/1/2010	6,400
		000363	2/8/2004	2,000	2/8/2010	4,000
		000371	5/10/2004	6,000	5/11/2010	12,000
		000355	3/5/2004	5,000	3/5/2010	10,000
		000472	12/2/2007	4,000	12/2/2014	8,000
		000497	1/7/2007	2,600	1/7/2014	5,200
		000443	5/4/2006	2,000	5/4/2013	4,000
		000438	20/3/2006	4,000	20/3/2013	8,000
		000433	6/3/2006	2,000	6/3/2013	4,000
		000479	12/3/2007	12,000	12/3/2014	24,000
		000489	3/4/2007	2,000	3/4/2014	4,000
2)	643/2014	000424	24/11/2005	20,000	24/11/2012	40,000
3)	644/2014	000453	21/6/2006	10,000	3/6/2013	20,000
		000390	8/2/2005	10,000	8/2/2011	20,000
		000623	5/9/2007	20,000	5/9/2008	22,000

 

          10) After the death of Sri. Devegouda the L.R.’s filed the present cases. The complainant/s contended that they have personally approached and requested the O.Ps. society to return the matured the F.D.R. amount. Inspite that the O.Ps. went on postponing the same by assigning one or other reason. Therefore the O.ps. got issued legal notice through their counsel. Said notice was duly served and the O.Ps. replied the notice and denied the entire contents of the complaints and accepted the only deposits.

          11) The main contention of the opponents is that, the deceased husband of complainant No.1 was one of the director of the O.P. society and during his tenureship as director he misuse the power of and on his own risk had sanctioned the personal loan of Rs.1,96,000/- to 11 persons. Even though considering the this fact, the O.Ps. have not produced a single document to show that the loans are sanctioned by the deceased Shri.Devegouda to 11 persons on his own risk. Moreover, the deceased complainant was one of the director as contended by the O.p. in their objection and affidavit. But as per the bylaws of the O.P. society it will be a collective decision of all the committee members to sanctioned the loan to any person one who approaches the O.Ps. society for the loan. Hence the contention of the O.Ps. that the deceased Sri. Devegouda on his own risk sanctioned the loan to 11 persons without the knowledge of O.ps. society cannot be believed and accepted. The another point here is to be considered that the O.Ps. have admitting the deposits kept by the deceased Sri. Devegouda in the O.Ps. society in his name and also in the name of minors. Hence denying to pay the F.D.Rs. amount to complainant/s only on the ground that the loan sanctioned by the deceased Sri. Devegouda is defaulted loan cannot be considered and accepted.

12) But another contention of the O.Ps. that the wife of deceased Sri. Devegouda who is complainant No.1 in this complaint is one of the director of the O.P. society. Hence she is liable to recover the loan sanctioned by the deceased Devegouda. But looking to documents as the loan was sanctioned after placing it before the managing committee as it is general and according to bylaws. The Managing Committee after recommending for the loan, the loans would be sanctioned. Therefore taking a defence that until the loans given to 11 persons by the deceased Devegouda, the O.Ps. will not pay the fixed deposit amount to the present complainant/s cannot be accepted and the same will be against the law.

13) The another contention of O.Ps. are that being the director of the O.Ps. society, the complainant No.1 is not a consumer. But it is to be noted that the F.D.Rs. kept by the deceased Devegouda some are on individual name and some are kept on the name of minor son and also the nominee to the F.D.Rs. is the present complainant No.1 who is the wife of deceased Devegouda. It is not the contention of the O.Ps. that in anyway directly or indirectly the wife of deceased Devegouda is involved in the affairs of the O.Ps. society at the time of sanction of loan by her husband. Even though for the sake of belief that loans were sanctioned by the husband of complainant No.1, but non releasing of the F.D.R. amount to the complainant/s amounts to deficiency of service and more over the O.Ps. have admitted the F.D.Rs. Therefore the complainant/s are a consumer and O.Ps. are liable to pay the F.D.R. amounts.

14) The O.Ps. have not produced a single document to show that, if the directors are members of Managing Committee.  Who kept fixed deposit will not entitle for the refund of the F.D.R. amount. More over from the contents of objections and affidavits in the present case, the complainant No.1 has been appointed as a director after the death of Sri. Devegouda her husband. But the F.D.R. kept in the O.P. society was prior to appointing the complainant No.1 as the director of the O.P. society. Hence denying the release of said F.D.R. to the complainant/s does not hold any water. The point here also that the some of the F.D.R. are kept in the name of minor by the deceased Devegouda and the same minor is represented by his minor guardian who is the complainant No.1. Therefore the complainant No.2 and 3 in complaint NO.642/2014 are consumers to the complaint and O.Ps. are liable to release the F.D.Rs. standing in the name of minor. On perusal F.D.Rs. Secretary and Chairman have signed on the F.D.Rs. who are liable to pay the maturity amount to the complainant/s.

          15) Taking into consideration of the facts, evidence on record and the discussion made here before deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. have been proved.

          16) Taking in to consideration of various aspects and the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court reported in (2011) SCCR 268 and of the Hon’ble Apex Commission reported in 2013 (2) CPR 574 as well as other subsequent decisions, absolutely it is just and necessary to impose cost on daily basis if order remains uncomplied within the period fixed for compliance of the order, so as to have feeling and pinch.

          17) Hence we proceed to pass the following order;

ORDER

          The complaints are partly allowed.

          The O.Ps. represented by the Secretary and Chairman are hereby directed to pay to the complainant/s as ordered below;

Sl. No.	Complaint No.	FDR No.	Date of deposit	Amount deposited	Date of maturity	Maturity amount
1	2	3	4	5	6	7
1)	642/2014	000455	5/7/2006	2,000	5/7/2013	4,000
		000484	2/4/2007	5,000	2/4/2014	10,000
		000428	16/2/2006	5,000	16/2/2013	10,000
		000310	31/7/2003	2,000	31/10/2008	4,000
		000617	25/7/2007	8,000	25/7/2008	19,800
		000394	21/2/2005	2,000	21/2/2011	4,000
		000407	11/4/2005	2,000	11/4/2011	4,000
		000385	7/2/2005	6,000	7/2/2011	12,000
		000400	24/3/2005	5,000	24/3/2011	10,000
		000383	22/12/2004	12,000	22/12/2010	24,000
		000337	2/1/2004	3,200	2/1/2010	6,400
		000363	2/8/2004	2,000	2/8/2010	4,000
		000371	5/10/2004	6,000	5/11/2010	12,000
		000355	3/5/2004	5,000	3/5/2010	10,000
		000472	12/2/2007	4,000	12/2/2014	8,000
		000497	1/7/2007	2,600	1/7/2014	5,200
		000443	5/4/2006	2,000	5/4/2013	4,000
		000438	20/3/2006	4,000	20/3/2013	8,000
		000433	6/3/2006	2,000	6/3/2013	4,000
		000479	12/3/2007	12,000	12/3/2014	24,000
		000489	3/4/2007	2,000	3/4/2014	4,000
2)	643/2014	000424	24/11/2005	20,000	24/11/2012	40,000
3)	644/2014	000453	21/6/2006	10,000	3/6/2013	20,000
		000390	8/2/2005	10,000	8/2/2011	20,000
		000623	5/9/2007	20,000	5/9/2008	22,000

 

The O.Ps. represented by the Secretary and Chairman are hereby directed to pay the F.D.R/s. deposited amount to the complainant/s as mentioned in column No.7 with future interest at the rate of 8% P.A. from the dates mentioned in column No.6 till realization of the entire amount.

          Further, O.Ps. represented by the Secretary and Chairman are hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- in each complaint/s, to the complainant/s towards costs of the proceedings.

          The order shall be complied within 30 days from the date of the order.

The original order shall be kept in complaint No.642/2014 and the true copy in other clubbed cases.

If the order is not complied within stipulated period, O.Ps. are hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.50/- per day to the complainant from the date of disobedience of order, till the order is complied.

 (Order dictated, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on: 30^th day of November 2015)

Member                Member                            President.

gm*