Karnataka

Belgaum

CC/451/2014

Tara H Shrikhande. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Ajit G Bhokare. Secertary Of Shree RAgunath Cr Sou Saha Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

S.M. Gawade

02 Feb 2015

ORDER

(Order dictated by Smt. S.S. Kadrollimath, Member)

ORDER

          U/s. 12 of the C.P. Act, the complainant has filed the complaint against the O.Ps. alleging deficiency in service of non payment of the amount of the matured F.D.R.

          2) O.Ps. in the version denied the deficiency in service and contend that there is no cause of action and alleged that the complainant has not approached the society and allegations made are baseless and the deposit is made when the name of the society was Raghunath Sahakari Patha Sanstha Ltd., Nipani etc.,

          3) To prove the claim, the complainant has filed affidavit and produced original F.D.R and certain other documents. O.P. has filed his affidavit.

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

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

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

:: R E A S O N S ::

          7) The evidence on record establish that the complainant has kept a sum of Rs.10,000/- in fixed deposit under F.D.R. No.5727 and A/c. No.1757 on 02/12/2002 for a period of 181 days and above the interest rate was 10% P.A.

          8) Grievance of the complainant is that after maturity inspite of the demands made, the maturity value remained unpaid.The complainant in his complaint has contended that he has requested the secretary to release the amount but the secretary assured that after sale of building the payment will be made. The complainant further contended that on 10/06/2014 approached the society but the O.P. refused to make payment. O.P. in the version denied the deficiency in service and contend that there is no cause of action and alleged that the complainant has not approached the society and allegations made are baseless and the deposit is made when the name of the society was Raghunath Sahakari Patha Sanstha Ltd., Nipani. The O.P. at para No. 2 of the objection has admitted the remittance of the deposit and the period of deposit but has stated that the deposit was made under the name and style as mentioned supra and prayed to dismiss the complaint. After verifying the fixed deposit it is noticed that the deposit is made and receipt issued is by Shri Raghunath Sahakari Patha Sanstha Ltd., Nipani but the complainant at the time of filing of the complaint in the cause title mentioned O.P. address as Shri Ragunath Credit Sahourd Ltd., the O.P. has rightly taken a contention in the objection as well as the affidavit of the O.P. but after perusing the affidavit file by the O.P. the affidavit para No.3 which reads as follows:

          Para No.3 “That I stated that the Souhard Sahkari is ever ready to make the payment of the amount, but the complainant is insisting for the payment of interests, without renewing the deposits and/ or discharging the same, which in itself is not deficiency of service.

          9) It is to be noted this para that the O.P. himself have mentioned as Souhard Sahakari hence the complainant even though the deposit the amount under name and style Shree Raghunath Sahakari Patha Sanstha Ltd., Nipani, the O.P. prayed to produced the document to show that it was deposited in “Souhard Sahakari” but the O.p. himself have shown in the affidavit that Souhard Sahakari is ready to make the payment. Hence, the complainant further proving the same that deposit made was under Shree Raghunath Sahakari Patha Sanstha Ltd., and under Souhard Sahakari does not arised. Taking into consideration arguments and verifying document produced the complainant has proved his case and deficiency of service of the part of the O.P.

 

10) 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.

          11) Accordingly, following order.

ORDER

          Complaint is partly allowed.

          The O.P. Souhard Sahakari represented by the Secretary is hereby directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.10,000/- the amount in respect of F.D.R No.5727 and A/c. No.1757  with interest at the rate of 10% P.A. from 2/12/2002 till realization of the entire amount.

          Further, the O.P. Souhard Sahakari represented by the Secretary is hereby directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards costs of the proceedings.

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

          If the order is not complied within 30 days the O.P. Secretary is hereby directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.50/- per day till compliance of the order.

(Order dictated, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on: 2^nd day of February 2015).

     Member                        Member                   President.

gm*