Karnataka

Belgaum

CC/257/2015

Sahajadhi A Mulla - Complainant(s)

Versus

B S Mantoor The Liquidator Of Om Ganesh Cr Sou Saha Nyt Nippani - Opp.Party(s)

V D Chougala

15 Oct 2015

ORDER

(Order dictated by Shri. B.V.Gudli, President)

ORDER

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

          2) Inspite of service of notice O.P. remained absent. Hence placed ex-parte.

          3) In support of the claim in the complaint, complainant has filed affidavit and original F.D.R. is produced by the complainant.

          4) We have heard the argument of the complainant counsel 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.P. 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) On perusal contents of the complainant and affidavit filed by the complainant. The opponent society had offered to pay the better rate of interest and as such the complainant had invested the money in fixed deposit. She has deposited the amount of Rs.66,960/- on 18/9/2010 under F.D.R. A/c. No. 20299 for the period of 3 years at the rate of 8% P.A. to be matured on 18/9/2013 and the maturity amount Rs.83,028/-.

          The complainant requested the opponent to return the matured amount, inspite of that opponent went on postponing the same by assigning one or other reasons. Thereafter the opponent got issued legal notice through his counsel said notice was duly served on the opponent. Inspite of that the opponent did not return the F.D.R. amount to the complainant. Hence opponent committed deficiency in service as contemplated under the provision of the consumer protection act 1986.

8) On perusal evidence affidavit of the complainant, after maturity of F.D.R. the opponent has not paid F.D.R. amount. inspite of the demands made to the O.P. has not paid the amount. Hence, the claim of the complainant that inspite of the demands made the amount remained unpaid, has to be believed and accepted. It is well settled legal position that non payment of the amount deposited, amounts to deficiency in service.

          9) 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.

          10) Accordingly, following order.

ORDER

          The complaint is partly allowed.

The O.P. represented by the Liquidator is hereby directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.83,028/- in respect of F.D.R. A/c. No.20299, with future interest at the rate of 8% P.A. from 19/9/2013 till realization of the entire amount.

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

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

If the order is not complied within stipulated period, O.P. 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 and then pronounced in the open Forum on: 15^th day of October 2015)

Member                   Member                                  President.

gm*