Karnataka

Belgaum

CC/424/2014

Channappa B Chitti. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Ashok V Yaragatti. Chairman Of Netaji Urban Co-Op Cr Scty. - Opp.Party(s)

S.S. Shettar.

04 May 2015

ORDER

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

ORDER

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

          2) O.P.No.1 appeared through advocate but did not filed version. The complainant against O.P.No.2 is not pressing the complaint. Hence the complaint against O.P.2 dismissed.

3) In support of the claim of the complaint, complainant has filed his affidavit and certain document including original F.D.Rs. are produced. We have heard arguments of the counsel for complainant’s and perused the record.

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

5) Finding on the point is partly in affirmative for the following reasons.

REASONS

6) Oral and documentary evidence on record establish that under FDR No. 000213 and F.D.R. No. 000196 in the name of the complainant a sum of Rs.20,000/- each were kept in fixed deposit with the O.P. society on 14/8/2000 and 10/4/2000 for a period of 15  years and maturity date was 14/8/2015 and 10/4/2015 respectively. Maturity value was Rs.2,42,736/- each.

7) Grievance of the complainant is that inspite of the repeated requests the amount remained unpaid and hence there is deficiency in service. These facts alleged in the complaint are stated by the complainant in the affidavit. Prior to filing of the complaint notice was sent to the O.Ps. for that also O.Ps. not replied. Hence, deficiency in service is proved.

8) 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.

9) Considering the fact, evidence and discussion made here before, following order.

ORDER

          The complaint is partly allowed.

The O.P. represented by the Chairman is hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- to the complainant, in respect of FDR Nos. 000213  with interest at the rate of 8% p.a. from 14/8/2000 till realization of the entire amount.

Further the O.P. represented by the Chairman is hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,42,736/- to the complainant, in respect of FDR Nos. 000196 with interest at the rate of 8% p.a. from 10/4/2015 till realization of the entire amount.

Further, O.P. society represented by the Chairman is hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant towards costs of the proceedings.

Order shall be complied within one month from the date of the order.

If the order is not complied within stipulated period, O.P. society represented by the Chairman is hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.50/- per day to the complainant from the date of disobedience of order, till the order is complied.

(Order dictated, corrected & then pronounced in the Open Forum on this 4^th day of May 2015).

          Member                    Member                    President.

gm*