Complaints filed on: 04-02-2022

                                                      Disposed on: 26-08-2022

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, TUMAKURU

DATED THIS THE 26^th DAY OF AUGUST, 2022

PRESENT

SMT.G.T.VIJAYALAKSHMI, B.Com, L.L.M, PRESIDENT

SRI.KUMARA.N, B.Sc., L.L.B, MEMBER

SMT.NIVEDITA RAVISH, B.A., L.L.B, LADY MEMBER

CC.No.44/2022

Smt. Rajeshwari K.B.

W/o A.N.Panditharadhya,

A/a 40 years, R/at

Ishwarya Nilaya,

1^st Block, 4^th Main,

2^nd Cross, Near TUDA Office,

Kuvempunagara, Tumakuru.

……….Complainant

(By Sri.K.S.Jagananth, Advocate)

V/s

Shivashree Sourdha Credit

Operative Ltd., TGMC Builidng,

JC Road, Tumakuru.

Shivashree Sourdha Credit,

Operative Ltd., 7^th Cross,

Ashokanagara, Tumakuru.

(By Sri. R.Premkumar – Adv.,)

                                                          :O R D  E R :

SMT.NIVEDITA RAVISH -  LADY MEMBER

          This complaint is filed by the complainant under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019, with prayers to direct the Opposite Parties (hereinafter called as OPs) to settle the amount of deposit as stated in Para-4 of the complaint under sub para (A) & (B) and to issue demand draft or to pay through NEFT to the complainant’s bank account with interest accrued and also pray to direct the OPs to pay compensation of the sum of Rs.5,00,000/- at the rate of interest @ 12% p.a. and cost of Rs.20,000/-

2.       It is the case of the complainant, that the complainant has deposited various amounts as fixed deposit in OPs Society and which were matured as shown in the table below:

and further the said deposits except F.D.No.010767 were renewed and matured as follows:-

3.       The complainant further renewed the F.D. bond Nos.010908, 010907, 010913, 010909 from 21.09.2020 upto maturity date i.e. 09.07.2023.  Due to family problems and legal necessitates the complainant has approached the OPs to release the deposit amount before the maturity period and to release some deposits which are already reached the maturity dates which are kept the original bonds in the OPs’ society itself.  After issuing request letter to OPs for release of deposited amount, OPs have not released the F.D. Amounts.  Hence, this complaint.

4.       After issuing notice, the OPs have appeared through their common counsel and filed their version.  The OPs have submitted that the allegations made by the complainant against the OPs are false and the complainant has suppressed many relevant facts.  Further, the OPs have submitted that the complainant and her husband namely A.N.Panditharadhya was running a firm as “DIGITAL WORLD”, wherein both complainant and her husband was doing business of selling home appliances, wherein both the complainant and her husband had tied up with the OPs for financing to the customers referred to by the complainant from namely DIGITAL WORLD for purchase of consumer durables form the said firm of the complainant which is in the name of ‘DIGITAL WORLD”.  Further, the OPs have submitted that, complainant along with her husband had transacted nearly 3000 accounts wherein almost all the accounts had been closed wherein still remaining 242 accounts are still to be closed wherein the said customer of the said 242 accounts has defaulted wherein the responsibility of recovering the same lies on the complainant and her husband only as there was oral contract between the complainant, her husband and the OP society, that it is the duty and the responsibility of the complainant and her husband only responsible for recovering the said financed amount towards the purchase of consumer durables from DIGITAL WORLD.  Further, the OPs have submitted that complainant’s firm has stood as the guarantor to the said financed amount and there is also took resolution in the year 2014 by Board of Directors, due to this business relationship only the said deposits were also being renewed.  Further the OPs have submitted that the dispute that has been involved herein between the complainant and her husband in the name of the firm DIGITAL WORLD and the OPs society has not come within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Commission to decide the dispute as the dispute do not pertain to deficiency of service and also the OP society has not liable.  Further, the OPs have submitted that, complainant and her husband suppressing the relevant facts and they were not made any attempt to recover the loan amount taken by the customers through DIGITAL WORLD as made in oral contract between complainant, her husband and OP society and the said loan amount is the public money, which is the duty of the OP society to protect the public money.  Hence, the OPs prayed for dismiss the complaint with exemplary costs. 

5.       The complainant filed her affidavit with 22 documents which are marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P22 and produced another document with memo.  One Sri. T.C.Mallikarjunaiah, Head of the Legal Department of the OP Society has filed his affidavit and one Shri Karthik, B.S., Manager of OP society filed additional affidavit and produced 07 documents on behalf of OP society, which are not marked.  

6.       We have heard the arguments of both counsels and also perused the written arguments.  The points that would arise for our determination as under:-

1. Whether the complainant proves deficiency in service of the OPs Society

2. Is complainant is entitled to the relief sought for?

7.        Our findings on the aforesaid points are as under:

Point No.1: In the affirmative

Point No.2: As per final order for the below

:R E A S O N S:

Point Nos.(1) and (2):

8.       The learned counsel for the complainant argued that, the complainant has deposited different amounts in the OP’s Society in different date as per the below Table (A) and renewed the same as per below Table (B)

Table : A

Table : B

Further, the counsel for complainant argued that F.D.Nos.010908, 010907, 010913, 010909 were again renewed from21.09.2020 and the maturity date of the said F.D. bond is 09.07.2023.

9.       The Ex.P4 to Ex.P22 produced by the complainant are proves that the complainant has deposited the different amount and reached the maturity date as mentioned in the above Table.  Further the complainant Ex.P1 acknowledgment of registered post and Ex.P2 letter written to the OP are reveals that complainant has made approaches regarding releasing of matured F.D. Amounts.

10.  Counsel for the OPs vehemently argued that, the complainant and her husband namely A.N.Panditharadhya was running a firm known as “DIGITAL WORLD” where they are selling home appliances wherein both the complainant and her husband had tied up with the OPs for financing to the customers referred to by complainant firm for purchase of the consumer durables from the said firm of the complainant.  As per argument of the OPs, they have not produced any documents to show that complainant and her husband tied up with the OPs for financing to the customers referred to by the complainant.  The OPs have produced annexure No.4 letter issued by the KALPATARU DIGITAL WORLD” to OPs.  It reveals that, the said firm has not accepted the responsibility of loans taken by the customers of the said firm by OPs society.  Further, the OPs have produced the Annexure No.3 resolution of board in the year 2014.  The OPs further argued that the firm of the complainant has stood as the guarantor to the said financed amount to individual customers.  All this has been passed by the OPs in the form of resolution in the year 2014 by board of directors.  Further, the deposits that is being claimed by the complainant is also held as collateral to the transaction business relationship between the complainant duly representing the firm DIGITAL WORLD with duly representing the firm DIGITAL WORLD with OP due to this business relationship only the said deposits were also being renewed.  On perusal of annexure-3 produced by the OPs, it reveals that, it was the resolution of OPs society and it was not signed by complainant.  Moreover, the resolution passed in the year 2014 and Ex.P4 to Ex.P22 reveals that, F.D. bond issued by OP society to the complainant in the year 2015, 2016,  Further, Ex.P4 to Ex.P22 reveals that OP has issued the F.D. bonds in the name of complainant, not in the name of complainant firm “DIGITAL WORLD”.  Hence, the said arguments of the OPs not accepted.      

11.     Further, counsel for the OPs has argued that the dispute that has been involved herein between the complainant and her husband in the name of the firm DIGITAL WORLD and the OPs do not come within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Forum to decide the dispute as the dispute do not pertain to deficiency of service.  But when there is all F.D. bonds from Ex.P4 to P22 stood in the name of the complainant, then the complainant and Op’s society were comes under purview of the “Consumer” and “Service Provider” and section 100 of consumer protection Act 2019 reveals that, “The provisions of this Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force”.  Accordingly, this Commission have jurisdiction to decide the present case.

12.     It was the bounden duty of the OPs to return back the maturity amounts to the complainant immediately after expiry of maturity date or at-least after service of Ex.P2 requesting letter by the complainant.  The OP though received Ex.P2 has failed to comply the same.  The fact of the OPs in not returning back the invested amount to the complainant amounts to deficiency in service.  Hence, the OPs shall liable to pay all maturity amounts with interest @ 8% p.a. from the respective maturity dates till realization.

13.     The complainant has prayed for compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- at the rate of 12% p.a. and Rs.20,000/- as cost against OPs.  But the complainant has not produced any documents to show that she has entitled for compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- @ 12% PA and Rs.20,000/- as cost against the OPs.  Hence, same is not considered.  But the OPs have compelled the complainant to approach this Commission and by considering mental agony suffered by the complainant, the OPS shall liable to pay compensation of Rs.20,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant.  In the result, we proceed to pass the following:-  

:O R D E R:

The complaint filed by the complainant is allowed in part.

The OP Nos. 1 & 2 shall jointly and severally directed to pay Rs.5,70,304/- from 07/05/2019, Rs.62,937/-, Rs.83,917, Rs.83917/-, Rs.83,917 from 05.02.2021 and Rs.64,484/-, Rs.64,484/-, Rs.64,484/-, Rs.64,484/-, Rs.64,484/-, Rs.64,484/-, Rs.64,484/-, Rs.64,484/-, from 09.07.2020 with interest @ 8% PA from respective maturity date till realization.  

Further, the OP Nos. 1 & 2 shall jointly and severally liable to pay compensation of Rs.20,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant within 45 days from the date of receipt/knowledge of this order, failing which, it carries interest @ 9% PA till realization.

Furnish the copy of order to the complainant and opposite parties at free of cost.

(