State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Basavaraj vs Smt.Parwatevva on 21 November, 2022
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION BASAVA BHAVAN, BANGALORE. First Appeal No. A/50/2020 ( Date of Filing : 17 Jan 2020 ) (Arisen out of Order Dated 19/06/2018 in Case No. Complaint Case No. CC/199/2017 of District Dharwad) 1. Basavaraj S/o Panduranga Kadam, Manager, Kalabhairaveshwara Krupa Souharda Sahakari Niyamitha, Dharwad, R/a Tollnaka, P.B.road, Dharwad Karnataka ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. Smt.Parwatevva W/o Veerabhadrappa Basavaraddi, Aged about 73 years, Occ:Private, R/a Kamakshi General stores, 2nd Main, Narayanapura, Dharwad Tq. & Dist Karnataka 2. K.Rajugouda Aged about 50 years, Occ:M.D/Chairman, Kalabhairaveshwara Krupa Credit Souhard Sahakari Niyamith R/a Near Head post office, U.B.Hill, Dharwad, At & post:Kebbanalli, Krishnarajpet, Mandya Dist Karnataka 3. K.Kantharaju Aged about 49 years, Occ:Director, Kalabhairaveshwara Krupa Credit Souhard Sahakari Niyamith At & post:Kebbanalli, Krishnarajpet, Mandya Dist Karnataka 4. B.K.Rekha Aged about 44 years, Occ:Director, Kalabhairaveshwara Krupa Credit Souhard Sahakari Niyamith At & post:Kebbanalli, Krishnarajpet, Mandya Dist Karnataka 5. K.Vinaygouda Aged about 40 years, Occ:Director, Kalabhairaveshwara Krupa Credit Souhard Sahakari Niyamith At & post:Kebbanalli, Krishnarajpet, Mandya Dist Karnataka 6. K.Praveen Aged about 39 years, Occ:Director, Kalabhairaveshwara Krupa Credit Souhard Sahakari Niyamith At & post:Kebbanalli, Krishnarajpet, Mandya Dist Karnataka ...........Respondent(s) First Appeal No. A/51/2020 ( Date of Filing : 17 Jan 2020 ) (Arisen out of Order Dated 19/06/2018 in Case No. Complaint Case No. CC/198/2017 of District Dharwad) 1. Basavaraj The Manager, Kalabhairaveshwar Krupa Credit Souharda Niyamitha, Dharwad, R/a Tollanak, P.B.road, Dharwad karnataka ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. Shivaraj S/o Veerabhadrappa Basavaraddi, Aged about 50 years, Occ:Teacher, R/a Kamakshi General Stores, 2nd main, Narayanapur, Dharwad Karnataka 2. K.Raju Gowda Aged about 50 years, Occ:M.D/Chairman, Kalabhairaveshwara Krupa Credit Souhard Sahakari Niyamith R/o Near Head post office, U.B.Hill, Dharwad also at: Kebbanalli, Krishnarajpet Tq., Mandya Dist. Karnataka 3. K.Kantharaju Aged about 49 years, Occ:Director, Kalabhairaveshwara Krupa Credit Souhard Sahakari Niyamith At & post:Kebbanalli, Krishnarajpet, Mandya Dist Karnataka 4. B.K.Rekha Aged about 44 years, Occ:Director, Kalabhairaveshwara Krupa Credit Souhard Sahakari Niyamith At & post:Kebbanalli, Krishnarajpet, Mandya Dist Karnataka 5. K.Vinayagowda Aged about 40 years, Occ:Director, Kalabhairaveshwara Krupa Credit Souhard Sahakari Niyamith At & post:Kebbanalli, Krishnarajpet, Mandya Dist Karnataka 6. K.Praveen Aged about 39 years, Occ:Director, Kalabhairaveshwara Krupa Credit Souhard Sahakari Niyamith At & post:Kebbanalli, Krishnarajpet, Mandya Dist Karnataka ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. Ravishankar PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MRS. Smt.Sunita Channabasappa Bagewadi MEMBER PRESENT: Dated : 21 Nov 2022 Final Order / Judgement BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE. (ADDL. BENCH) DATED THIS THE 21st DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022 APPEAL Nos. 50/2020 TO 51/2020 PRESENT SRI RAVI SHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER
SMT. SUNITA C.BAGEWADI, MEMBER 1. Appeal No.50/2020 Basavaraj S/o Panduranga Kadam, The Manager, ... Appellant/s Kalabhairaveshwara Krupa Credit Souharda Sahakari Niyamita, Dharwad, R/o Tollnaka, PB Road, Dharwad (By Sri.Shivakumar B.Katagi, Advocate)
-Versus-
1. Smt.Parwatevva W/o Veerabhadrappa Basavaraddi, Age: 73 years, Occ: Private R/o. Kamakshi General Stores, 2nd Main, Narayanapur, Dharwad and Ors
2. Shri.K.Rajugouda, Age: 50 yrs, Occ: MD/Chairman, Kalabhairaveshwar Krupa Credit Souharda Sahakari Niyamit, R/o Near Head Post office, UB Hill, Dharwad Shri.K.Rajugouda At & post: Kebbanalli, Tq: Krishnaraj Peth, Dist: Mandya ... Respondent/s
3. K.Kantharaju Age: 49 years, Occ: Director of Kalabhairaveshwar Krupa Credit Souharda Sahakari Niyamit, At & post: Kebbanalli, Tq: Krishnaraj Peth, Dist: Mandya
4. B.K.Rekha Age: 44 years, Occ: Director of Kalabhairaveshwar Krupa Credit Souharda Sahakari Niyamit, At & post: Kebbanalli, Tq: Krishnaraj Peth, Dist: Mandya
5. K.Vinayagouda Age: 40 years, Occ: Director of Kalabhairaveshwar Krupa Credit Souharda Sahakari Niyamit, At & post: Kebbanalli, Tq: Krishnaraj Peth, Dist: Mandya
6. K.Praveen, Age: 39 years, Occ: Director of ... Respondent/s Kalabhairaveshwar Krupa Credit Souharda Sahakari Niyamit, At & post: Kebbanalli, Tq: Krishnaraj Peth, Dist: Mandya (Respondent Nos.2, 4 and 5-by Sri.Mohan Malge, Adv.,) (Respondent No.1-by Sri.S.I.Doddannavar, Adv.,) 2. Appeal No.51/2020 Basavaraj S/o Panduranga Kadam, The Manager, ... Appellant/s Kalabhairaveshwara Krupa Credit Souharda Sahakari Niyamita, Dharwad, R/o Tollnaka, PB Road, Dharwad (By Sri.Shivakumar B.Katagi, Advocate)
-Versus-
1. Shivaraj S/o Veerabhadrappa Basavaraddi, Age: 50 years, Occ: Teacher R/o. Kamakshi General Stores, 2nd Main, Narayanapur, Dharwad and Ors
2. Shri.K.Rajugouda, Age: 50 yrs, Occ: MD/Chairman, Kalabhairaveshwar Krupa Credit Souharda Sahakari Niyamit, R/o Near Head Post office, UB Hill, Dharwad Shri.K.Rajugouda At & post: Kebbanalli, Tq: Krishnaraj Peth, Dist: Mandya ... Respondent/s
3. K.Kantharaju Age: 49 years, Occ: Director of Kalabhairaveshwar Krupa Credit Souharda Sahakari Niyamit, At & post: Kebbanalli, Tq: Krishnaraj Peth, Dist: Mandya
4. B.K.Rekha Age: 44 years, Occ: Director of Kalabhairaveshwar Krupa Credit Souharda Sahakari Niyamit, At & post: Kebbanalli, Tq: Krishnaraj Peth, Dist: Mandya
5. K.Vinayagouda Age: 40 years, Occ: Director of Kalabhairaveshwar Krupa Credit Souharda Sahakari Niyamit, At & post: Kebbanalli, Tq: Krishnaraj Peth, Dist: Mandya
6. K.Praveen, Age: 39 years, Occ: Director of ... Respondent/s Kalabhairaveshwar Krupa Credit Souharda Sahakari Niyamit, At & post: Kebbanalli, Tq: Krishnaraj Peth, Dist: Mandya (Respondent Nos.2, 4 and 5-by Sri.Mohan Malge, Adv.,) (Respondent No.1-by Sri.S.I.Doddannavar, Adv.,) O R D E R BY SMT. SUNITA C.BAGEWADI, MEMBER The Appeal Nos.50/2020 to 51/2020 have been filed by the appellant/Opposite Party No.2 being aggrieved by the order dated 19-6-2018 in consumer complaint No.199/2017 and 198/2017 respectively passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Dharwad and prays to set-aside the order passed by the District Consumer Forum.
2. The appellant/Opposite Party No.2 have filed these two appeals against the same order and the subject matter involved in these appeals are one and the same and also appellant are one and the same. Hence, for the sake of convenience, all these appeals are taken up together to pass a common order.
3. The parties to the appeals shall be referred to as complainants and Opposite Parties respectively as per their rankings before the District Consumer Forum.
4. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:-
The OP-1, 3 to 6 are the directors of Kalabhairaveshwar Krupa Credit Souharda Sahakari Niyamit and OP-2, the Manager is looking after the affairs of the said society. The OP-1 to 6 assured the complainant regarding high rate of interest on deposits in the society and on believing the Ops, the complainant invested the hard earned money in OPs Sahakari Niyamit. The particulars of deposits and interest etc., are as follows.
Sl.
No. FD amount Rs.
Rate/% Period Opening date Maturity date Maturity value A/c No. Appeal No.50/2020 1 75,000/-
15.50 48 months 23-4-2015 23-4-2019 1,21,500/-30 2
50,000/-
15.50 1096 days 13-10-2018 13-10-2018 73,271/-
94 375,000/-
15.50 1096 days 5-11-2015 5-11-2018 1,09,907/-
98 41,00,000/-
15.50 1096 days 10-12-2015 10-12-2018 1,46,542/-
105and Sl.
No. FD amount Rs.
Rate/% Period Opening date Maturity date Maturity value A/c No. Appeal No.51/2020 1 1,00,000/-
14.11 60 months 27-05-2015 27-5-2020 2,00,000/-
04 250,000/-
14.11 60 months 27-05-2015 27-5-2020 1,00,000/-
05 350,000/-
14.11 60 months 04-08-2015 04-08-2020 1,00,000/-
06 450,000/-
14.11 60 months 04-08-2015 04-08-2020 1,00,000/-
07 560,000/-
14.11 60 months 04-08-2015 04-08-2020 1,20,000/-
08 650,000/-
14.11 60 months 04-08-2015 04-08-2020 1,00,000/-
09 765,000/-
14.11 60 months 04-08-2015 04-08-2020 1,30,000/-
10 81,00,000/-
14.11 60 months 12-08-2015 12-08-2020 2,00,000/-
11 91,00,000/-
14.11 60 months 12-08-2015 12-08-2020 2,00,000/-
12 101,10,000/-
14.11 60 months 12-08-2015 12-08-2020 2,20,000/-
13 111,00,000/-
14.11 60 months 13-10-2015 13-10-2020 2,00,000/-
145. The Ops also issued FD receipts in the name of complainant after deposits and assured that if amount is required before maturity; same will be paid with interest up to date. The complainant wanted to purchase residential plot for construction of house and therefore he approached Ops several times to refund the amount before maturity. However the OPs went on postponing by giving one or other reasons and lastly the closed the office and locked for the reasons best known to them. Therefore the omission on the part of Ops to pay the amount is deficiency of service and thereby the complainant has suffered. Hence, these complaints.
6. In spite of service of notice by substitute service, the Opposite Parties remained absent and placed ex-parte.
7. It is clear from the deposit receipts filed by complainants that they have deposited total sum of Rs.3,00,000-00 and Rs.8,35,000/- respectively with Ops society for different periods. The complainants requested the Ops to release the amount for purchasing plot and for medical treatment and hospital expenses. However the Ops neither released the amount nor replied to the letters of complainants.
8. The Ops have not appeared before this Forum nor denied the case of the complainant by filing written version. The silent attitude of Ops also goes to show that they have committed deficiency in service.
9. After trial, the District Consumer Commission, Dharwad allowed the complaint.
10. Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellant/Opposite Party No.2 has preferred these appeals on various grounds.
11. Heard from both sides.
12. Perused the appeal memo, order passed by the District Consumer Commission, we noticed that there is 546 days delay in filing these appeals before this Commission and appellant has filed an application for delay condonation under Section 5 of the Limitation Act along with affidavit. Subsequently, this commission has issued notice to the respondents along with IA copy on 11-1-2022 one Sri.S.I.Doddannavar, advocate files power for Respondent No.1 along with objections to the delay application and this commission kept open the IA for condonation of delay, the matters were posted for hearing and steps for respondent no.3. Subsequently on 2-8-2022 Sri.Mohan Malge, advocate files memo of appearance on behalf of respondent no.3 and submits that these appeals are barred by limitation.
13. Now before going on merits, we have to decide the delay condonation application first. Appellants have filed an application for delay condonation under Section 5 of Limitation Act and sworn affidavit that, the counsel filed an application for certified copy on 3-1-2020 and certified copy of the order dated 4-12-2019 were delivered to him on 4-1-2020 by the office. Moreover, the respondent no.1 is family friend and knew him about his residential address, even though his residential address as his personal address and legal notice, summons notice etc. came as unclaimed. The respondent No.1 filed objections for the said applications and submitted that, the District Consumer Commission has passed the order dated 19-6-2018 and the present appeals came to be filed on 17-1-2020 there is abnormal inordinate and unexplained delay of 577 days in filing these appeals. The appellant knowingly the full well that the said order came to be passed by the District Consumer Commission on account of their illegal acts revealed from Kannada Prabha Daily News paper which has got vide circulation in the area wherein the appellant has been residing. Moreover, despite of this efforts made by the complainants to serve the notice through RPAD in criminal complaint the same has been served on the appellants as such the complainant was left with the no option but file an application under Order 5 Rule 20A of CPC and the same notice by way of substituted service has been served despite paper publication, the appellant did not appear before the District Consumer Commission and he was placed exparte. The respondent no.1 relied on ruling reported in 2019 (1) CPR 370 (NC) - Shara India Commercial Corporation Ltd and Ors -v/s- Sheetal Surinder Kumar Chadda and Anr., the delay of 66 days in filing the appeal was not condoned and it is upheld that the conduct of the respondent who have that here by condoning the delay is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. In present case, the appellant has filed an application and sworn affidavit and narrated the reasons for the delay, we have not satisfied the reason, because the appellant himself stated that, R1 is the family friends of him and she knew about his address with the society was closed and appellant purposely avoided the notices because he is very well the future consequence, hence we cannot condone the huge delay 546 days. The appellant has to file these appeals within the stipulated time as per Consumer Protection Act.
14. Hence, considering the facts, discussion made here, we are of the opinion that, the appeals are dismissed as barred by limitation itself. Hence, there is no necessary to discussions on merits further, hence appeals are dismissed. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following:-
O R D E R The appeals are hereby dismissed as barred by limitation. No order as to costs.
The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the concerned District Commission to pay the same to the complainant.
The original of this order shall be kept in Appeal No.50/2020 and a copy of same shall be kept in Appeal No.51/2020.
Send a copy of this order to both parties as well as concerned District Commission.
Lady Member Judicial Member [HON'BLE MR. Ravishankar] PRESIDING MEMBER [HON'BLE MRS. Smt.Sunita Channabasappa Bagewadi] MEMBER