Karnataka

Belgaum

CC/623/2014

Amit A Chavan - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Vice Chairman of Bharati Mahila Cr Sou Saha Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

R.R.Chavan.

17 Apr 2017

ORDER

IN THE DIST.CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM BELAGAVI.

Dated this 17^th April 2017

Complaint No. 623 and 624/2014

 

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

                        2) Smt.Sunita                            Member

-***-

Complainant/s:	Sri.Amit Anant Chavan, Age: 30 years, Occ: Business, R/o: Nipani, Tq.Chikodi, Dist.Belagavi CC 623/2014 Sou.Vidhya Vivekanand Solankure, Age: 40 years, Occ: Household work, R/o: Akol, Tq.Chikodi, Dist.Belagavi CC 624/2014  (By Sri.R.R.Chavan. Adv)
	V/s
Opponent/s:	The Vice-Chairman, Bharati Mahila Credit Souharda Sahakari Niyamit, Old PB Road, Nipani, Tq: Chikkodi, Dist: Belagavi.     The Secretary, Bharati Mahila Credit Souharda Sahakari Niyamit, Old PB Road, Nipani, Tq: Chikkodi, Dist: Belagavi.    (OP-1 is exparte, OP.2 By Sri.S.R.Sakri. Adv)

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

 

 

COMMON ORDER

          I. 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. are same. Hence, for convenience all the cases are disposed of by the common order.

          II. Since there are 2 cases and same the complainants are there having different addresses and particulars of the 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 table.

          1)      U/s 12 of the C.P. Act., the complainant has filed the complaint against the O.Ps. for deficiency of service in not refunding FDR amount.

          2) In support of the claim in the complaints, complainants has filed affidavit and produced some documents including original FDRs. Inspite of service of notice, the OP-1 remained absent. Hence OP-1 is placed exparte. The OP-2 has appeared through her counsel and filed written version and affidavit.   

          3) We have heard the arguments and perused the records.

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

          5) Our finding on the point is in partly affirmative, for the following reasons.

:: R E A S O N S ::

          6) On perusal of contents of complaints & affidavits of the complainants, complainants had deposited their saved money in OP souhard as detailed below:

Comp No.	FDR No.	FDR Amt	Dt of FD	Dt of Maturity	Matured Amt.
623/14	4414	22,000	11.07.02	11.07.12	1,00,000
	4227	2,000	25.04.02	25.01.07	4,000
624/14	3707	22,000	17.10.01	17.10.11	1,00,000

 

After maturity complainants approached the OPs many times & requested to pay the maturity amount but, OPs have not paid the matured amount to the complainants. It amounts to deficiency of service on the part of OPs. Lastly fed up with behavior of OPs the complainants issued demand notice on 03.09.2014 calling upon the OPs to make payment of matured FDRs with interest. The notices have been duly served on the OPs. Inspite of service of notice the OPs have failed in making payment of matured FDR amount with interest. Therefore the complainants are constrained to file these complaints against OPs.

7)      On perusal of contents of objection filed by OP-2,  the OP.2 admits the deposit amount as FD in OPs society by the complainants. Further, the OP-2 in his objection contends that the complainants & other members were also informed through the publication on the notice board & also through letters to get surrendered the matured certificates & open a SB account for getting transferred the said FDRs & receive the amount, on their maturity, but the complainants have filed these complaints alleging deficiency of service on the part of OPs. Further, the OP-2 is only an employee of the souhard sahakari & an employee of Souhard sakari cannot be saddled with liabilities & also that of negligence and deficiency of service as she does not provide any service to anyone & it is the sahakari through its Executive Head which furnishes the services & hence prays for dismissal of the complaints.

8)      On perusal of contents of complaints and affidavits filed by the complainants the FDRs are in the name of the complainants. Though the OP.2 contends that the OP-2 is only an employee of the souhard sahakari & an employee of Souhard sakari cannot be saddled with liabilities & also that of negligence and deficiency of service as she does not provide any service to anyone, but the OP.2 has not proved the same by way of adducing cogent evidence.

9) On perusal evidence affidavit of the complainants, the complainants produced original FDR receipts, the FDRs are in the name of complainants and after maturity of F.D.Rs the opponents  have not paid matured F.D.R amounts. Inspite of the demands made to the O.Ps have not paid the amount. Hence, the claim of the complainants that inspite of the demands made the amount remained unpaid, has to be believed and accepted. Inspite of service of notice the OP-1 has failed to appear before the forum. Hence OP-1 has been placed as exparte. It is well settled legal position that non payment of the amount deposited, amounts to deficiency in service.

          10) Taking into consideration of the facts, evidence on record and the discussion made here before deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. have been proved.

 

12) Accordingly, following

ORDER

          The complaints are partly allowed.

          The O.Ps as shown in the cause title are hereby jointly and severally directed to pay the matured FDRs amount to the respective complainants as mentioned in the table below.

Comp No.	FDR No.	FDR Amt	Dt of FD	Dt of Maturity	Matured Amt.
1	2	3	4	5	6
623/14	4414	22,000	11.07.02	11.07.12	1,00,000
	4227	2,000	25.04.02	25.01.07	4,000
624/14	3707	22,000	17.10.01	17.10.11	1,00,000

 

The matured amount of the respective cases as per column.6 with future interest @9% P.A. from the date of their respective maturity till realization of entire amount.

Further, the O.Ps as shown in the cause title are hereby jointly and severally directed to pay Rs.2,000/-, to the complainants in each case towards compensation and Rs.1,000/-  in each case towards costs of the proceedings.

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

 Original order be kept in Compt.623/2014 & its copy in Compt.624/2014.

(Order dictated, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on: 17^th day of April 2017)

 

 

 

MSR