IN THE DIST.CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM BELAGAVI. AT BELAGAVI

Dated this 22^nd  day of August 2016

Complaint Nos. 272/2016, 273/2016 and 274/2016

Present:            1) Shri. B.V.Gudli,                     President

                        2) Sri. V.S. Gotakhindi,              Member.

                        3) Smt. Sunita                           Member.

-***-

Complainants:1) Sri.Kiran Punnappa Mannolkar,

                             Age: 48 years, Occ: Business,

                             R/o: CCB 764, 7^th Cross,

                             Bhagya Nagar, Belagavi.

                   2)      Sri.Parasharam Yallappa Kurne,

                             Age: 43 years, Occ: Business,

                             R/o: Sambhaji Galli, Belagavi.

                                                                             C.C. No.272/2016

1)      Sri.Kiran Punnappa Mannolkar,

                             Age: 48 years, Occ: Business,

                             R/o: CCB 764, 7^th Cross,

                             Bhagya Nagar, Belagavi.

                                                                             C.C. No.273/2016

1)      Smt.Vandana Pandurang Patait,

                             Age: 65 years, Occ: Household,

                             R/o: H.No.53/B, Baswan Galli,

                             Hosur, Belagavi.

                                                                             C.C. No.274/2016

(By Sri. M.V.Vardhamane, Advocate).

                                                          V/s.

Opponents: 1)     The Special Officer,

Shri.Suyakant,

Kapilnath Credit Souhard Sahakari Ltd., Belagavi

C/o.The Karnataka State Souhard Federation Sahakari Ltd., Regional Office, Sanjog Building, Opp.P&T Quarters, Mahantesh Nagar, Belagavi.

                   2)      Shri.Paragouda Appanna Halppannavar,

Secretary,

Kapilnath Credit Souhard Sahakari Ltd.,

Belagavi, R/o.Mahadev Nagar, Sambra, Tal:Belagavi.

 (O.Ps. are placed ex-parte,)

(Order dictated by Shri.B.V.Gudli, President)

COMMON ORDER

Though the complainants are different, their grievances, allegations and the facts pleaded are same except the details of the deposits by the respective complainants. In all the cases the O.Ps. society is same, represented by Secretary and Special Officer. 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 different 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)   In-spite of service of notice O.Ps. remained absent. Hence OPs are placed exparte.  

3) In support of the claim in the complaint, complainant has filed affidavit and certain documents including original F.D.R./s are produced. We have heard arguments of the counsel and perused the record.

4) Now the point for our consideration is that whether the complainant has proved any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. and he is entitled to the reliefs sought?

5) Finding on the point is partly in affirmative for the following reasons.

:: R E A S O N S ::

          6) From the evidence on record it has been proved that the complainant/s have deposited the amount in O.P. society in F.D.R/s. in the respective accounts and for the respective sum mentioned in the F.D.R/s. The maturity value, the amount deposited and the dates are shown in the table below;

7) Grievance of the complainant/s is that after maturity inspite of the repeated requests the maturity value was not paid and hence there is deficiency in service. On perusal evidence affidavit of the complainant, after maturity of F.D.R/s., as mentioned above in the table, the opponents have not paid F.D.R/s. amount. Hence, the claim of the complainant that inspite of the demands made the amount remained unpaid, has to be believed and accepted. It is well settled legal position that non payment of the amount deposited, amounts to deficiency in service. In complaint No.274/16, the complainant is the joint account holder along with the deceased. In these cases the delay condonation application filed by the complainant was not allowed but after perusing documents and application the forum condoned the delay and the application is allowed. The complainant has contended that the O.Ps. are entitled to pay future  interest of 18% P.A. and even after approaching have failed to pay the F.D.R/s. amount by which the complainant have suffered financial and mentally and prayed to allow the complaint with interest. The considering contention that the complainant/s are entitled for future at the rate of 18% P.A., but the future ordered below is just and reasonable which is ordered from the date of maturity. In Compt.No.274/2016, after perusal of the FDR we notice that the complainant in this case is a joint account holder along with the deceased husband and also it is the contention of the complainant that on 16/8/2014 complainant’s husband expired and also that as she is the joint account holder of the FDR the present complaint is filed. In Compt.No.272/2016 there are 2 complainants and the names and the surnames are different. On perusal of the FDR we noticed that both the complainants are joint account holders of the FDRs. Though the notice is served on OPs no representation is made.

8) 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.

          9) Accordingly, following order.

ORDER

          The complaints are partly allowed.

          The O.Ps. represented by the Special Officer and Secretary as shown in the cause title are jointly and severally are hereby directed to pay to the complainant/s as ordered below;

F.D.R/s. amount matured to the complainant/s as mentioned in column No.7 with future interest at the rate of 8% from the dates mentioned at column No.6 as shown in the table above respectively till realization of entire amount.

          The O.Ps. represented by the Special Officer and Secretary as shown in the cause title are jointly and severally are hereby directed to pay to the complainant/s a sum of Rs.3,000/- in each complaint, to the complainant/s towards costs of the proceedings.

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

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.

The original order shall be kept in complaint No.272/2016 and the true copy in other clubbed cases.

 (Order dictated, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on: 22^nd day of August 2016)

          Member                    Member                    President.

msr*