Karnataka

Belgaum

CC/412/2014

Abhinandan B Kamate - Complainant(s)

Versus

Chairman. Sanjay B Khot. Shri Kedarling Ur Sou Cr Saha Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

V B Sankpal

02 Feb 2015

ORDER

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

:: O R D E R ::

          U/s.12 of the C.P. Act, 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) Inspite of service of notice O.P.2 remained absent and placed exparte. The O.Ps. No.1 has appeared through Advocate. The O.P.1 in his objection contended that present complaint is barred by limitation and reason assigned in delay condonation application are not worth to be believed. Therefore the complaint filed by the complaint is not maintainable. Further O.P.1 submitted that he has resigned from the post of directorship he has not interested to hold any post in the society. Further he contended that he has not responsible for any previous any future transaction of the society. The resignation was O.p.1 was accepted, the O.p.1 is not all concerned to the above said society. Therefore the present complaint filed by the complainant against this O.P. by showing him as a chairman is not at all maintainable and liable to be dismissed against this O.P. Further, he submitted that the managing director of Karnataka State Souhard Sahakari Niymit Bangalore had passed detailed order on 29/9/2009 Sri. S.S.Deshmane as a administrator of O.P. society by dissolving managing committee of the said society. In view of the said order passed by the competent authority the administrator is proper and necessary party to the proceedings. 

          3) In support of the claim of the complaint, complainant has filed his affidavit and original F.D.R. is produced by the complainant and O.P.1 has filed his affidavit and produced the certain documents.

          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) From the evidence on record it has been proved that in F.D.R. No.000046 and A/c. No.44 a sum of Rs.8,500/- on 08/1/2001 was kept by the complainant in the O.P. society and the maturity value of Rs.17,000/- as on 8/6/2005.

          8) The O.Ps. No.1 has appeared through Advocate. The O.P.1 in his objection contended that present complaint is barred by limitation and reasons assigned in delay condonation application are not worth to be believed. Therefore the complaint filed by the complaint is not maintainable. Further O.P.1 submitted that he has resigned from the post of directorship he has not interested to hold any post in the society. Further he contended that he has not responsible for any previous any future transaction of the society. The resignation was O.p.1 was accepted, the O.p.1 is not all concerned to the above said society. Therefore the present complaint filed by the complainant against this O.P. by showing him as a chairman is not at all maintainable and liable to be dismissed against this O.P. Further, he submitted that the managing director of Karnataka State Souhard Sahakari Niymit Bangalore had passed detailed order on 29/9/2009 Sri.S.S.Deshmane as a administrator of O.P. society by dissolving managing committee of the said society. In view of the said order passed by the competent authority the administrator is proper and necessary party to the proceedings. That no single document is coming forth before the forum that Sri.S.S.Deshmane has taken charge of the society as administrator and also that chairman’s resignation has been accepted by proper authority and the chairman has move such application. The period of administrator from the date of order was for period of 6 months only as already been lapsed and there is no further order as to who has taken over the charge of the society. To chairman and secretary legal notice were came to be issued by the complainant but the O.Ps. have denied the same and to show that notice is were dispatched the complainant has produced postal receipts which are before the forum. Moreover the O.p.2 evenafter the notice was sent through forum has not claimed the same. Hence placed exparte. There are no reasons to discard the contention taken by the complainant against the O.Ps. Hence considering the documentary evidence and argument advanced the complainant has proved deficiency of service on the part of the O.Ps.

          9) Grievance of the complainant is that after maturity inspite of the repeated requests the maturity value was not paid and hence there is deficiency in service. These facts alleged in the complaint are asserted by the complainant in the evidence affidavit. Hence, deficiency in service is proved. The complainant has also issued legal notice through the counsel prior to filing the complaint. The O.Ps. have not responded to the notice issued by the complainant and the same is contended in the affidavit as well as the complaint filed by the complainant.

          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

          The complaint is partly allowed.

          The O.P. represented by the Chairman and Secretary jointly and severally are hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs. 17,000/- in respect of F.D.R. No. 000046 and A/c. No.44 to the complainant with interest at the rate of 8% P.A. from 8/6/2005 till realization of the entire amount.

          Further, the O.P. Chairman and Secretary jointly and severally are 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.Ps. are 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: 2^nd day of February 2015)

Member                         Member                             President.

gm*