Karnataka

Kolar

CC/63/2014

N.Basavegowda - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Secretary,EARTH Movers Employees Housing Society,& Ors - Opp.Party(s)

B.R.Ravindra

02 Jul 2015

ORDER

Date of Filing: 17/12/2014

Date of Order: 02/07/2015

BEFORE THE KOLAR DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, D.C. OFFICE PREMISES, KOLAR.

 

Dated: 02^nd DAY OF JULY 2015

PRESENT

Sri. N.B. KULKARNI                                   …….         PRESIDENT

         Sri. R. CHOWDAPPA                                 ……..     MEMBER

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO: 63 OF 2014

N. Basavegowda,

S/o. Narayanagowda,

Aged About 60 Years,

R/at: Door No.2335, Vivekananda Nagar,

Bangarpet Town, Bangarpet.

 

(Rep. by Sriyuth. B.R.Ravindra, Advocate)                ….  Complainant.

 

- V/s -

1) The Secretary,

Earth Movers Employees

Housing Society,

Office at Railway Station Road,

Kolar City, Kolar-563 101.

 

2) The President,

Earth Movers Employees

Housing Society,

Office at Railway Station Road,

Kolar City, Kolar-563 101.

 

(Rep. by Sriyuth. A. Lakshminarayan, Advocate)     …. Opposite Party.

 

ORDER ON IA-1, AS WELL, ORDER ON MAIN COMPLAINT

 

BY Sri. N.B. KULKARNI, PRESIDENT

01.   The complainant having submitted this complaint as envisaged Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, has sought relief of refund of Rs.2,00,000/- along with interest from the date of the complaint till realization together with costs; for being recovered from the OP Nos.1 & 2 jointly and severally. 

02.   Contending that by way of abundant caution I.A. No.1 Under Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 R/w Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been submitted to condone the delay if any.  The complainant has annexed his affidavit assigning the reasons to condone the delay.

 

03.   The facts in brief:-

It is contention of the complainant that, he being the share holder of the BEML was also member of the society run by OP Nos.1 & 2.  And that on 03.12.2004 vide receipt No.41 he had deposited sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and on 20.12.2004 vide receipt No.42 he had deposited further sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with the Ops.  And that in this context even the notice was issued by the enquiry officer who conducted enquiry with regard to the society of which he is member.

(a) It is further contended that when need arose he made several attempts by approaching the Ops to get the repayment, but in vain and that ultimately on 15.10.2014 and then on 25.11.2014 he caused notices on the Ops for which there could be no response. 

(b) Further it is contended that though there could be no delay by way of affidavit caution the said I.A. No.1 is preferred.  Thus this complainant has come up with the complaint on hand to seek above set out relief.

(c)    Along with the complaint the complainant has submitted following nine documents:-

1.     True copy of receipt No.41

2.     True copy of receipt No.42

3.     True copy of requisition letter dated: 26.07.2006

4.     Office copy of legal notice dated: 15.10.2014

5.     Original Two RPAD receipts

6.     Original Two RPAD acknowledgements

7.     Office copy of legal notice dated: 25.11.2014

8.     Original Two RPAD receipts

9.     Original Two RPAD acknowledgements.

 

04.   In response to the notices issued with regard to the case on hand, Ops have put their appearance through their said learned counsel.  They have preferred objections to the complaint though the president being the OP-2.  There is denial with regard to depositing of the said sum on the said dates.  However it is admitted with regard to issuance of the said notices on said dates.

(a)    Specifically it is contended that while depositing any amount with regard to the share holders receipt would be issued as well FD bond.  And that as the complainant has failed to furnish the documents the reply to the said notices was not given as there was no need of it. 

(b)    Further it is contended that, in case such deposits were reality the time of 14 years has lapsed without the complainant claiming any interest and that this would reveal the falsity in the claim of the complainant.   Thus it is contended that there could be no deficiency of service.  So contending dismissal of the complaint with exemplary costs has been sought.

05.   The complainant has submitted his affidavit evidence on 20.04.2015 and on this day with Memo on behalf of the complainant following documents have been submitted:-

1.     Original receipt dated: 03.12.2004 as issued by the Ops.

2.     Another original receipt dated: 20.12.2004 as issued by the Ops.

3.     The office copy of the letter dated: 26.07.2006 addressed by the complainant to the OP-1 claiming the said deposited amounts.

4.     Copy of the notice Under Section 64 issued by the Enquiry Officer to the complainant.

06    On behalf of the Ops 1 & 2 OP-1 has submitted his affidavit evidence.

07.   On 27.05.2014 the learned counsel appearing for the Ops has submitted written arguments.  On 08.06.2015 the learned counsel appearing for the complainant has submitted written arguments.

08.   On 29.06.2015 heard the oral arguments as advanced by the learned counsel for the complainant.  As the learned counsel appearing for the Ops was absent the matter was adjourned to 30.06.2015 for the said purpose.  As on this day the learned counsel appearing for the Ops continued to remain absent it was taken that there could be no oral arguments to submit. 

 

09.   Therefore on I.A. No.1 and with regard to the complaint following points do arise for our consideration:-

1.   Whether I.A. No.1 is needed?

2.   Whether Op Nos.1 & 2 are guilty of deficiency in service?

3.   If so, to what relief the complainant is entitled to?

4.   What order?

 

10.   Findings of this District Forum on the above stated points for the following reasons are:-

POINT No.1:  No need

 

POINT No.2:  In the Affirmative

 

POINT No.3: The complainant is held entitled to refund of Rs.2,00,000/- together with interest @ 9% pa from 17.12.2014 till realization for being recovered from OP Nos.1 & 2 jointly and severally.

 

POINT No.4:    As per the final order.

 

REASONS

POINT No.1:-

11.   When it is a definite case of the complainant that, on 03.12.2004 and on 20.12.2004 he deposited with the OP Nos.1 & 2 the said sum of Rs.1,00,000/-, which remained still continued with the Ops, no time has run counter to this complainant.  Therefore there was no even a need to submit this I.A. No.1 to seek condonation of delay.  In other words we are bound to hold that, submission of the complaint is quite in time.

 

POINT Nos.2 & 3:-

12.   To avoid the repetition in reasonings and as these points do warrant common course of discussion, the same are taken up for consideration at a time. 

(a)    The OP Nos.1 & 2 have unnecessarily gone to the extent of denying the very said deposits.  As contended by the complainant on 03.12.2004 in sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and on 20.12.2004 again in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-.  The complainant has produced the original receipts.  Hence the OP Nos.1 & 2 cannot even raise the contention on imagination that there could be no deposits as asserted by the complainant.

(b)    The Ops have gone to the extent of pleading that nearly 14 years time has been lapsed and if it quite be true about the said deposits then the complainant could not have remained silent without asserting to claim interest.  This contention is again false.  For, office copy of the letter dated: 26.07.2006 addressed by the complainant to the OP No.1 would reveal that as per the said receipts the said sums since remained with the Ops he sought refund of the same along with the interest what more is required?  Further it is worth to note that there is a notice dated: 31.10.2011 issued by the Enquiry Officer who conducted enquiry of the society run by these Ops 1 & 2, wherefore it is distinctly clear that the complainant was directed to appear before the said authority on 31.10.2011 to make enquiry, in, as much as, there was deposit of Rs.2,00,000/- vide said receipt Nos. 41 and 42.  And even the interest was collected by the complainant till 31.03.2005.  Hence by taking up false contention that the complainant had not deposited any sums, the Ops 1 & 2 have shown themselves as grossly deficient in their service. 

(c)    As the said sum of Rs.2,00,000/- has remained with the OP Nos.1 & 2 as on this date we are of the opinion that, the complainant is entitled to get refund of the same together with interest @ 9% pa from 17.12.2004 being the date of the complaint till realization for being recovered from OP Nos.1 & 2 jointly and severally.

POINT No.4:-

13.   We proceed to pass the following:-

ORDER

01.   For foregoing reasons, the complaint stands allowed with costs of Rs.2,500/- as hereunder:-

(a) The complainant is entitled to refund of Rs.2,00,000/- together with interest @ 9% pa from 17.12.2014 till realization for being recovered from OP Nos.1 & 2 jointly and severally.