BEFORE THE DIST. CONSUMERS DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM; DHARWAD.
DATE: 21st May 2015
PRESENT:
1) Shri B.H.Shreeharsha : President
2) Smt.M.Vijayalaxmi : Member
Complaint No.: 12/2015
Complainant/s: Sheshappa I.Dewadiga,
Age: 65 years, Occ: Business, R/o. “Manjunath Krupa”, Daroga Oni, Dharwad.
(By Sri.H.R.Mane, Adv.)
v/s
Respondent/s: 1. The Karnataka Vishwabrahama Co-Operative Credit Society Ltd., Raviwarpeth, Dharwad, R/by its Secretary.
(notice served)
2. Kallappa V.Badiger, Age: 48 years, Occ: Chairman of OP.1, R/o.Daivadyna Nagar, Hebballi Agasi, Dharwad.
3. L.G.Badiger, Age: 63 years, Occ: Vice Chairman of OP.1, R/o.Navanagar, Gamanagatti Road, Near Hadagali Complex, Tq. Hubli, Dist. Dharwad.
(By Sri.S.B.Kodihalli, Adv.)
4. Mohan S.Mestri, Age: 54 years, Occ: Secretary of OP.1, R/o.Pendar Oni, Dharwad.
(In Person)
5. C.G.Badiger, Age: 61 years, Occ: Director of OP.1 R/o. “Khalika Krupa”, Vishwabharati Housing Society, C.B.Nagar, Dharwad 580 007.
(By Sri.S.B.Kodihalli, Adv.)
O R D E R
By: Shri. B.H.Shreeharsha : President.
1. The complainant has filed this complaint claiming for a direction to the respondents to pay deposit amount of Rs.1,11,506/- along with interest @10.50% from 26.07.2013 till realization, to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation and to grant such other reliefs.
Brief facts of the case are as under:
2. The case of the complainant is that, the complainant had invested a sum of Rs.1 lakh with respondent.1 co-op. credit society ltd., respondent.2 is the Chairman, respondent.3 is the vice chairman, respondent.4 is Secretary and respondent.5 is the Director. The respondents have agreed to pay the same with interest @10.5% on the deposit amount as the complainant is senior citizen. Accordingly the complainant deposited Rs.1 lakh on 20.06.2012 for a period of one year to be matured on 25.07.2013. The said amount matured on 25.07.2013 with maturity value of Rs.1,11,506/-. Accordingly the complainant approached respondent.4 and requested to pay the amount, during that time respondent.4 told the complainant to approach after 15 days. Accordingly when the complainant approached the respondent.4 at that time respondent.2, 3, 4 and 5 were together and requested the complainant to renew the same and to reinvest the same for further one year period. But complainant not agreed to renew the same. During that time respondents requested the complainant to give some more time to repay the deposit amount. When the complainant strongly insisted the respondents to repay the amount on 25.10.2013 the respondents received the deposit receipt from the complainant and endorsed on the back of the deposit receipt “¸ÀzÀj gÀPÀA£ÀÄß oÉêÀtÂzÁgÀgÀ G½vÁAiÀÄ SÁvÉUÉ dªÀiÁ ªÀiÁrzÉ R No.2029” and the said endorsement was signed by Secretary, Chairman. The respondents also obtained some signature of the complainant on some blank papers and told the complainant to come and to collect the amount on the next day. When the complainant approached the respondent on the next day the respondents told that they have transferred the deposit amount to complainant’s SB account and the same may be withdrawn but complainant has not maintained any savings account with the respondent.1 society. The respondents have falsely endorsed on the FD receipts mentioning the amount has been transferred to the savings account of the complainant. The act of respondents amounts to deficiency in service as such the complainant filed the instant complaint praying for the relief as sought.
3. In response to the notice issued from this Forum the respondent.1 remained absent. Hence, exparte proceedings was instituted against the respondent.1. While the respondent.2,3 and 5 appeared through advocate and respondent.2 filed the written version while respondent.3 and 5 filed adoption memo adopting the written version filed by R2. While respondent.4 appeared in person but not filed written version and contest the matter.
4. The respondent.2 admits written version in detail denying and disputing the complaint averments. Further the respondent taken contention that the complaint as brought is not maintainable, parties are not properly arrayed, respondent.4 has been sued both in individual and as well as in official capacity arraying him twice, as such the complaint is not maintainable and prays for dismissal of the complaint on the said grounds. Further the respondent taken contention that the complaint as brought is not maintainable and as per the co-operative Act the complainant is not a consumer and he cannot maintain consumer complaint and prays for dismissal of the complaint. Further the respondent taken contention that due to mismanagement of the respondent.4 the respondents are not in a position to maintain the official works of respondent.1 society, enquiry proceedings has been initiated against R4 and proper enquiry will be conducted and therafter the recovery proceedings will be carried out and the amount will be returned to the deposit holders. At this stage all the records of R1 society has been misplaced and not handed over to the respondents by the respondent.4, the respondents are not in a position to settle the claim and prays for dismissal of the complaint.
5. On the said pleadings the following points have arisen for consideration:
- Whether complainant has proved that there was deficiency in service on the part of respondents ?
- Whether complainant is entitled to the relief as claimed ?
- To what relief the complainant is entitled ?
The complainant, respondent.2, 3 and 5 admits sworn to evidence affidavit, relied on documents. Heard. Perused the records.
Finding on points is as under.
- Affirmatively
- Accordingly
- As per order
Reasons
Points 1 and 2
6. On going through the pleadings & evidence coupled with documents of both the parties it is evident that as per Ex.C1 the complainant has deposited a sum of Rs.1 lakh with respondent.1 society and this fact is not in dispute. On the rear side of the Ex.C1 respondent.2 and 4 have endorsed the amount has been remitted to the SB account of the complainant under receipt no.9029. Except making such endorsement in support of said endorsement the respondents have not produced any document to show that the respondent.2 and 4 have transferred the amount to the SB account of complainant. At the same time it is the contention of the complainant that he has not maintained any SB account with the respondents as such there does not arise question of transfer of said amount to his SB account as contended by the respondents. By this it is evident that the respondents have intentionally made false endorsement which amounts to deficiency in service amounting to unfair trade practice. Though the respondents have led evidence no whisper is made with regard to transfer of the amount to the SB account of the complainant. Accordingly the complainant has established his case of deficiency in service against the respondents. Accordingly the respondents are held liable to pay the said amount along with agreed interest 10.50% from 25.07.2013 till realization along with compensation and cost of the proceedings.
7. In view of the above discussions we have arrived and proceed to held issue.1 and 2 in affirmatively and accordingly.
8. Point.3: In view of the finding on points 1 and 2 proceeded to pass the following
Order
The complaint is allowed in part. The respondents are jointly and severally directed to pay Rs.1,11,506/- to the complainant with interest @10.50% P.A. from 25.07.2013 till realization along with Rs.2,000/- towards compensation and Rs.1,000/- towards cost of the proceedings within 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
(Dictated to steno, transcribed by him and edited by us and pronounced in the open Forum on this day on 21st day of May 2015)
(Smt.M.Vijayalaxmi) (Sri.B.H.Shreeharsha)
Member President
Dist.Consumer Forum Dist.Consumer Forum
MSR
