Karnataka

Belgaum

CC/608/2015

Sunita A Mujukar - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Secretary The Halaga Cr Sou Saha Nyt - Opp.Party(s)

C S Hiremath

15 Dec 2016

ORDER

                

ADDITIONAL  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BELAGAVI

C.C.No.608/2015

 

                     Date of filing: 15/12/2015

 

                                                                  Date of disposal:15/12/2016

 

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   -

Smt. Sunita W/o Adaveppa Mujukar, Age: 32 Years, Occ: Household works, R/o: Tarihal Village, Tq: & Dist. Belagavi.                     (Rep. by Sri. C.S.Hiremath, Adv.)

 

- V/S -

 

OPPOSITE PARTY  -

The Secretary, The Halaga Credit Souhard Sahakari Niyamit, (The Halaga Co-Op. Credit Society Ltd), Halaga Village, Tq: & Dist. Belagavi.                      (Rep. by Sri. G.B.Khandagale, Adv.

JUDGEMENT

 

By  Sri.A.G. Maldar, President.

 

 

1.      This is a Complaint filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (herein after referred to as Act) against the Opposite Party (in short the “Op”) directed to pay F.D. amount of Rs.50,000/- under the Scheme of Mangal Kalasha and compensation of Rs.25,000/- towards Mental torture and agony alongwith costs.

 

2.      The facts of the case in brief are that;

 

          It is case of the complainant is that, the Op society was introduced F.D. Scheme namely Mangal Kalash Deposit and accordingly, the said Scheme, the complainant had kept deposited an amount of Rs.5,000/- on 27.08.2000 and the said scheme was matured after 15 years and 3 months i.e. 28.08.2015 the maturity value of Rs.50,000/-. On the date of maturity, the complainant visited the OP society to get F.D. matured amount, but OP’s informed that, he had stopped the above said scheme and refused to pay the matured amount of Rs.50,000/- and they will pay only the deposited amount of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant.     

 

          It is further contended that, the complainant is the poor lady by day to day’s saving; she has deposited the above mentioned with hope that, she can get some amount in future for her life. But, the OP taking advantage of the illiteracy and being a woman and denied to pay the matured amount of Rs.50,000/- without assigning any reasons. The complainant has got issued legal notice to the OP through her Counsel dtd:28.09.2015 and notice was duly served to the OP and Op has given evasive reply to the said notice on 16.10.2015 to the complainant.

 

It is further contended that, the OP has not made any communication to the complainant regarding the alleged resolution passed by the OP, for the first time that, too in the reply notice of the OP they have changed the financial policies. This fact goes to show that, the malafeda intention of the OP to dupe the amount of the complainant is serious deficiency of service on the part of the OP. Hence the complainant has constrained to file this complaint.

 

  3.    After issue of notice to the Opponent, the opponent has appeared through his Counsel and resisted the claim of the complainant by filing his written version to the main petition contending that, Op society have totally denied the allegations made by the complainant and it is submitted that, the complainant has kept F.D. amount of Rs.5,000/- under the Mangala Kalasa Deposit Scheme in the year of 2000 vide F.D receipt No.9 for a maturity period of 15 years 3 months and the maturity amount will be Rs.50,000/-.   

          It is OP denied that, the complainant visited the OP society to get F.D. maturity amount and at that time, the OP has intimated to the complainant that, they have stopped the said Scheme and refused to pay the F.D. amount is false.   Further, specific case of the Op that, the true fact is that, Op has passed a resolution in the management committee meeting bearing resolution No.2 for the genuine reason of the changed financial policies and circumstances that, the “Mangal Kalasa Deposited Scheme” as it is not affordable/beneficial for the OP societies share holders in general and for this genuine reason the board of Directors of the OP society have decided to stop the said “Mangal Kalasa Deposited Scheme” from 17.04.2011 and further specific case of the OP that, the said resolution No.2 dtd:17.04.2011 OP society decided to give the amount kept in F.D. in Mangal Kalasa Deposited Scheme as Principal Amount + Rs.10,000/- towards the interest from 27.8.2000 to 17.04.2011 i.e. a total an amount of Rs.15,000/- and there onwards further interest at the rate of as applicable to the savings deposit interest till the maturity and thereon continued the same the rate of interest till the complainant take back the F.D. amount.  

 

          Further, it is case of the Op that, if the depositors not approached to the OP society then the said amount will be kept in savings deposit. In this regard, the notice has been issued to the depositors in Mangal Kalasa Deposited Scheme and also the complainant on 17.04.2011 vide letter reference No.07/HCSS/11-12 by the OP society by hand service personally and obtained their signature of the office copy which is produced as acknowledgement. OP further contended that, even after service of the said notice, the complainant has not approached the OP society in respect of the said notice nor complaint has given to the said notice and it is denied that, complainant is a poor and illiterate woman and complainant knows Marathi as well as English and complainant has signed all the documents in English as Sunija A. Mujukar in English language, whereas complainant has signed the present complaint filed before the Hon’ble forum in Marathi language, the reason best known to the complainant knowingly. 

 

          Further, the OP submitted that, as there is a practice and rule in the OP society that, in the absence of any standing instruction from the fixed deposit holder, after maturity the said amount is treated as savings deposit, and  accordingly, the rate of interest as applicable to the savings deposit is entitle to the said deposit. But, the complainant never approached the OP society in response to the notice and directly she filed this false complaint and further Op denied that, complainant has came to knowledge of the resolution passed by the OP society in respect of Mangala Kalasa Deposit Scheme first time in the reply notice sent by the OP. hence, on these among grounds of the objections the complaint may be dismissed.    

 

4.      Both the parties have filed their affidavits in lieu of evidence in support of their case. The documents produced on behalf of the complainant marked as Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-5 for shake of our convenience we have marked P & R series. On behalf of the Op has also filed 03 documents and same are marked as Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-3. Both parties have filed their Written Arguments and heard the argument of both sides. After perusing the pleadings, documents and objections.

 

Now, the following points that arise for our consideration in deciding the case are;

 

1. Whether the complainant has proved that there is deficiency in service on the part of the OP for not settling the payment of F.D. amount?

 

2. What order?

 

 

5.         Our findings to the above points are as under:

1. Affirmative.
2. As per final Order.

 

R E A S O N S

 

6.      Point No.1 : We have gone through the pleadings, evidence of both parties  and as well as documents on record. It is admitted fact that, the complainant is the shareholder of OP society and under the OP society, the OP has introduced the F.D. Scheme namely as “Mangal Kalash Deposit Scheme” and the complainant had made deposited an amount of Rs.5,000/- under the above said scheme on 27.08.2000 and the maturity date is 28.08.2015 for a period of 15 years 3 months and the maturity value is Rs.50,000/-.

 

The F.D. receipt is standing in the name of complainant which is already marked as Ex.P-1. It is the case of the complainant that, after maturity, the complainant has requested to the OP to pay the maturity F.D. amount. But, the OP postponing the same one or the other reason and the OP neither given any explanation nor given proper reason for not making good of the F.D. amount. On perusal of the affidavit evidence of the complainant that, after completion of the F.D. maturity, the complainant requested several times despite issuance of legal notice. The OP did not turned up and given vague reply, stating that, the said scheme has been stopped during the year 2011 itself and same thing has been intimated to the F.D. holders in accordance with Resolution No.2 passed on dated:17.04.2011 and further OP stated in the reply notice that, take back the said F.D. amount i.e. F.D. A/c No.9 of Rs.5,000/-, Principal Amount + Rs.10,000/- towards the interest from the date of F.D. i.e. 27.08.2000 to 17.04.2011 and then onwards the interest as per the rate of savings deposits. For that proposition of law, the OP has produced the documents like Original Application for Making Deposited dtd:27.04.2000, Office Copy of the Notice bearing Reference No.07/HCSS/011-12 dtd:17.04.2011 and Counter Foil Certificate of F.D. Receipts No.9, dtd:27.05.2000 and supporting affidavit of OP, it is crystal clear that, as stated by the OP in respect of F.D. receipt which has maturity date:28.08.2015 the said Scheme has been stopped in the year 2011 itself and there is no any rebuttal evidence on the side of complainant and mere denial of the complainant is not sufficient to discard the evidence of OP. hence, in our consider opinion the OP has substantiate his case by producing a material document and supporting affidavit evidence in respect of same. The case of the complainant that, the OP has neither conducting Committee Management Resolution No.9 on dtd:17.04.2011 nor he has intimated or issued letter regarding the same. For that proposition, the complainant has produced except F.D. receipt and legal notice, and receipt of the acknowledgements, in order to prove the contention of the contended in the complaint has failed to prove that, there was no any resolution passed and there was no any stop the Scheme such as “Mangala Kalash Deposit Scheme”. Hence, the contention of the complainant did not accept and it has no merit. Further, it is crystal clear that, as alleged in the memo of calculation filed by the OP in respect of rate of interest i.e. 4 % from the date of 17.04.2011, the OP has not established on what basis the 4 % has to be give interest in this regard, the OP has not substantiate the same and to hold that, the 4 % is proper. Hence, the OP has failed to establish that, the complainant is entitled only 4% from the date of resolution i.e. 17.04.2011. Therefore, the same contention cannot be accepted and it has no merit in the contention.  Moreover, the F.D. amount deposit is not been denied by the Opponent except the contents taken in the objection in regard to the “Mangal Kalasa Deposited Scheme” as it is not affordable/beneficial for the OP societies and for this genuine reason the board of Directors of the OP society have decided to stop the said “Mangal Kalasa Deposited Scheme” from 17.04.2011 and further specific case of the OP that, the said resolution No.2 dtd:17.04.2011 OP society decided to give the amount kept in F.D. in Mangal Kalasa Deposited Scheme as Principal Amount + Rs.10,000/- towards the interest from 27.8.2000 to 17.04.2011 i.e. a total an amount of Rs.15,000/-. Therefore, in our consider view that, the nonpayment of F.D. amount by the opponent and giving untenable reasons which is not mentioned in F.D. receipt.

 

However, the complainant is entitled to the fixed amount of Rs.5,000/- + Rs.10,000/- interest up to 17.04.2011 and further the complainant is entitled to recover interest @ 10% p.a. an amount of Rs.15,000/- from the date of resolution No.2 i.e. 17.04.2011 till realization and further the complainant is entitled for compensation of Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony and  Rs.2,000/- towards cost of litigation.  Therefore, the OP not making payment to the F.D. holders are amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opponent. Hence, we accordingly, answer to the Point No.1 in partly Affirmative.

        

8.      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 O.P. is hereby directed to pay F.D. receipt No.9 towards deposited of Rs.5,000/- towards Principal + Rs.10,000/- towards interest up to 17.04.2011 and the complainant is entitled to recover interest @ 10% p.a. on Rs.15,000/- from the date of resolution No.2 i.e. 17.04.2011 till realization.

 

 

Further, the O.P. is hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/-  towards mental agony and Rs.2,000/-  being the cost of the litigation to the complainant

 

          The order shall be complied within 06 weeks from the date of this order, failing to which the Complainant is entitled to recover Additional interest @ 2 % p.a. from the date of this complaint till its realization.

 

            (This order is dictated to the Stenographer, transcript edited, corrected and then pronounced in the open forum on this 15^th day of December, 2016).

 

 

Sri. A.G.Maldar,     President.

Smt. J.S. Kajagar,    Lady Member.