State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Branch Manager, Sumitra Bigarsheti ... vs Sau Tanubai Popat Salunkhe on 10 November, 2017
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI
Appeal No.A/15/944
(Arising out of order dated 19/05/2015 in CC/14/224 of D.F.Solapur)
1.Branch Manager,
Sumitra Bigarsheti Sahakari Patsanstha
Akluj, Taluka Malshiras
District Solapur
2. Chairman,
Sumitra Bigarsheti Sahakari Patsanstha
Akluj, Taluka Malshiras
District Solapur .....Appellants
Versus
Sau. Tanubai Popat Salunkhe
R/o.Umbare (Velapur)
Hanuman Anuse Vasti
Post Nevre, Taluka Malshiras .........Respondent
District Solapur
BEFORE: JusticeA.P.Bhangale, President
A.K.Zade, Member
ORDER
Per - Hon'ble Justice A.P.Bhangale, President
Mr.Paras Yadav-Advocate for appellant with authority letter. His first request is for adjournment of appeal on the ground of personal difficulty of advocate on record. However, we are not inclined to consider the request for adjournment. We insisted him for final hearing in the facts and circumstances of the case. None present for respondent.
In our view, when amount is deposited in the sum of Rs.17,000/- on 27/03/2008 and it had matured on 27/03/2013, the opponent (appellant) was under legal obligation to pay that amount along with interest @ 9% p.a. to poor farmer Smt.Tanubai Popat Salunkhe, resident of Umbare(Velapur), Post Nevre, Taluka Malshiras, District Solapur. The controversy is narrow. There were three such term deposits, which were referred in the complaint. Second deposit was in the sum of Rs.7,000/- deposited on 03/12/2009, which was payable together with interest @ 10% p.a., while another deposit was in the sum of Rs.13,800/- deposited on 04/02/2013, which was matured on 14/05/2019 and the complainant was to get double the amount. Since there is observation by the Learned Forum below that despite service of notice upon opponents, they did not attend the Forum, nor filed their written version despite the opportunity, hence to adjourn the appeal for unacceptable reason is not just and reasonable, particularly, when poor farmer is involved, who deposited her hard earned money with the Credit society of the appellant. The contractual liability arising out of term deposits cannot be avoided when fact of deposit was not disputed. That being so, we do not find any reason just and sufficient to disturb the impugned order. We, therefore, dismiss the appeal. No order as to costs.
Pronounced on 10th November, 2017.
[JUSTICE A.P.BHANGALE] PRESIDENT [A.K.ZADE] MEMBER Ms