I.       1. This complaint is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act alleging deficiency in service as against the Opposite Party claiming certain reliefs. 

The brief facts of the case are as under:

The Complainant has deposited certain sum of money with the Opposite Party and the Opposite Party is a registered society having its registered office in the above address. The details of the amounts deposited with the Opposite Party finance mentioned in detail herein below:-

The Complainant stated that, they have invested their hard earned money in Opposite Party co-operative society under the Fixed Deposit Receipt for the stipulated period and the Opposite Party inturn agreed to pay interest mentioned in the fixed deposit receipt.  Further it is stated that, the Opposite Party inspite of agreed to refund the aforesaid amount on the date of maturity mentioned in the Fixed Deposit Receipt not refunded the amount till this date.

It is stated that, the Complainant approached the Opposite Party, the Opposite Party has been indefinitely postponing the money payable under the Fixed Deposit Receipt without assigning any valid reasons which amounts to deficiency in service and hence the above complaint is filed before this Forum under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (herein after referred to as ‘the Act’) seeking direction from this Forum to the Opposite Party to pay the amounts shown in the schedule mentioned in the deposit receipt issued by the Opposite Party i.e. face value and interest till the maturity date and also pay interest at the rate of 14% per annum on the deposit receipt from the maturity date mentioned in the deposit receipt till the date of payment and also sought for compensation and cost of the proceedings.

II.      1. Version notice served to the Opposite Parties by R.P.A.D. The Opposite Party appeared in person and filed version stated that since 10 to 12 years due to loss in areca nut business, the society is suffered more than 24 crores. Hence the society is suffering from financial crunch.  Therefore, they could not discharge the liability/fixed deposit to the general public.  It is also stated that they will take steps to repay the same and denied the deficiency in service and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

III.     1. In support of the complaint, Mr.Simon Pinto – Complainant (CW1) on behalf of complainant one Leena Pinto filed affidavit reiterating what has been stated in the complaint and produced Ex. C1 to C4.

In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this case are as under:

1. Whether the complaint filed by complainant is maintainable?

    

2. Whether the Complainant proves that the Opposite Party committed deficiency in service?

    

3. If so, whether the Complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed?

1. What order?

              We have considered the notes/oral arguments submitted by the learned counsels and also considered the materials that was placed before this Forum and answer the points are as follows:  

                Point No.(i) & (ii): Affirmative.

                       Point No.(iii) & (iv): As per the final order.        

REASONS

IV.  1.  POINTS No. (i) to (iv): 

In the instant case, the Complainant in order to substantiate the complaint filed evidence on affidavit supported by Fixed Deposit Receipt i.e. Ex.C1 mentioned in the annexure in detail.  The Complainant’s G.P.A. holder sworn affidavit stating that, the Fixed Deposit is matured but the Opposite Party keep on assured to refund the amount by giving one or the other excuses and postponing the payment without valid reasons.  However, now the point for consideration is that, whether the Complainant is entitled for the amount mentioned in the Fixed Deposit receipt and thereby without paying the aforesaid amount the Opposite Party has committed deficiency in service? Answer is affirmative.

On perusal of the oral as well as documentary evidence available on record, we find that, the Complainant deposited the hard earned money under the Fixed Deposit receipt with the Opposite Party and the Opposite Party inturn agreed to refund the amount along with the interest on the date of maturity mentioned in the Fixed deposit receipt.  We are of the considered opinion that, in a case of like this nature reciprocal promises were enshrined in the contract/certificate/receipts entered/issued between the parties, both the parties were obliged to perform in that ‘Order’.  No doubt the Complainant invested certain sum of money under the Fixed Deposit receipt for a particular period with the Opposite Party and the Opposite Party inturn received the invested amount from the Complainant and agreed to refund the aforesaid amount along with the interest on the date of maturity.  When that being so, it is the obligation on the part of the Opposite Party Co-operative society to refund the amount to the Complainant on the date of maturity because the Opposite Party made use of the money pertaining to the Complainant in their society and agreed to refund the amount with interest.  When that being the position, the Opposite Party’s society should have refunded the amount to the Complainant without any demand.  As we know, the financial institutions are facing financial crunches and caused problems to the depositors and keep on seeking/postponing the payment by giving the one or the other reasons are common in a case of like this nature.  By considering the transactions involved in the above case, we are of the opinion that, cause of action will be continued till the payment invested under the Fixed Deposit receipt received by the Complainant.

Apart from the above, we also observed that, the opposite party took a contention that in other similar cases the complaint is not maintainable in view of the Co-operative Societies Act 1959 as per Section 70.  It is a settled position of law that, Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 not in derogation of any other law inforce, we mean to say Karnataka Co-operatives Societies Act 1959 too. It is further stated that since 10 to 12 years due to loss in areca nut business, the society is suffered more than 24 crores. Hence the society is suffering from financial crunch.  Therefore, they could not discharge the liability/fixed deposit to the general public.  It is also stated that they will take steps to repay the same and denied the deficiency in service.

In this connection we have referred a citation - THE TRINITY HOUSE BUILDING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. & ANR. VS WILSON PETERS decided on 30.11.1995 reported in 1996 Vol-I CPR 679 held as under:-

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 3 – Act, not in derogation of any other law – Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 – Section 70 – Complainant about neither allotment of housing site nor refund by OP/appellant- Allowed by DF – Appeal against – Whether Section 70 of Kar. Co-op-Soc. Act bars jurisdiction of Consumer Forum ? – (No) – Complaint is maintainable under COPRA (PARA 18) -  4 ½ YEARS LAPSING SINCE DEPOSIT – No allotment D.F. rightly ordered refund with interest (para 19).

Section 70 of Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 is not a bar to a complaint seeking relief for loss and injury suffered due to negligence of D.P. in deficiency in the performance of service viz. Allotment of housing site within a reasonable time after deposit of amount.

Similarly even in the above complaint there is no dispute that the complainant deposited amounts with the opposite party as averred by them in the complaint seeking refund of the amount.  The opposite party did not refund the amount till this date. Therefore, we hold that there is no substance in the version filed by the opposite party even the co-operative societies also falls within the purview Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. A person includes a Co-operative Society, the complainant has got right to file complaint against the co-operatives societies, the harmonious construction of these two provisions will clearly establish that the complaint filed by the complainant is maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

By considering the above aspects, we hold that, on failure to pay the aforesaid amount on the date of maturity till this date amounts to deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice as stated supra. Therefore, we hereby directed the Opposite Party i.e. The South Kanara Agricultural Co-Operative Marketing Society Ltd represented by its Managing Director shall refund Rs.2,23,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs Twenty three thousand only) i.e Ex.C1  along with contractual rate of interest from the date of deposit till the date of maturity to the complainant and thereafter Opposite Party shall pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of maturity till the date of payment. And also pay Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only) towards the cost of the litigation expenses.  Payment shall be made within 30 days from the date of this order.

In the present case, interest considered by this Forum itself is compensation and therefore, no separate amount for compensation is awarded.

In the result, we pass the following:-                

ORDER

The complaint is allowed. Opposite Party i.e. The South Kanara Agricultural Co-Operative Marketing Society Ltd represented by its Managing Director shall refund Rs.2,23,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs Twenty three thousand only) i.e Ex.C1  along with contractual rate of interest from the date of deposit till the date of maturity to the complainant and thereafter Opposite Party shall pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of maturity till the date of payment. And also pay Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only) towards the cost of the litigation expenses.  Payment shall be made within 30 days from the date of this order.4

The F.D.R. if any deposited by the Complainant be returned fourth with by substituting the certified.

The copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties and therefore the file be consigned to record.

(Page No.1 to 9 dictated to the Stenographer typed by him, revised and pronounced in the open court on this the 20^th day of March 2015.)

PRESIDENT                                   MEMBER

ANNEXURE

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant:

CW1 – Mr Simon Pinto – Complainant.

   On behalf of complainant G.P.A holder –

   Leena Pinto filed affidavit.

Documents produced on behalf of the Complainant:

Ex C1 : 16.11.2013: Original Fixed Deposit Receipt.

Ex C2: 23.12.2014: Original General Power of Attorney.

Ex C3: 1.8.2014. Office copy of Lawyer Notice.

Ex C4: Acknowledgment.

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Party:

- Nil -

Documents produced on behalf of the Opposite Party:       

- Nil -

Dated:20-03-2015                          PRESIDENT