Karnataka

Belgaum

CC/823/2014

Smt. Jayawanti Mahaveer Mugali, - Complainant(s)

Versus

Dundesh Muragappa Dhang - Opp.Party(s)

Sri. S.K.Patil

30 Mar 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.P. alleging deficiency in service of non payment of the amount of the F.D.Rs.

          2) O.P. inspite of service of notice remained absent and placed exparte.

          3) In support of the claim in the complaint, the complainant has filed affidavit and produced original F.D.Rs. and some documents are produced.

          4) We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the complainant 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) From the evidence on record it has been proved that The complainant/s have deposited the amount in O.P. society in F.D.R/s. in the respective accounts and for the respective some mentioned in the F.D.R/s. The maturity value, the amount deposited and the dates are shown in the annexure/table below;

Sl. No.	FDR/FDR. A/c. No.	Date of deposit	Amount deposited	Date of maturity	matured Amount
1	3	3	4	5	6
1	103	27/9/2003	5,000	27/3/2008	10,129
2	104	27/9/2003	5,000	27/3/2008	10,129
3	415	16/6/2005	5,000	16/7/2010	10,065
4	449	30/3/2006	7,000	30/4/2011	14,091
5	450	30/3/2006	7,000	30/4/2011	14,091
6	451	30/3/2006	6,000	30/4/2011	12,078

 

            8) Grievance of the complainant is that, after maturity, deposited amount remained unpaid inspite of the demands made. This fact is pleaded in the complaint and stated by the complainant in the affidavit. Thus, the evidence establish that inspite of the demands made, after maturity, the amount remained unpaid. It 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 complaints are partly allowed.

          The O.Ps. represented by the Managing Partner is hereby directed to pay to the complainant/s as ordered below;

Sl. No.	FDR/FDR. A/c. No.	Date of deposit	Amount deposited	Date of maturity	matured Amount
1	2	3	4	5	6
1	103	27/9/2003	5,000	27/3/2008	10,129
2	104	27/9/2003	5,000	27/3/2008	10,129
3	415	16/6/2005	5,000	16/7/2010	10,065
4	449	30/3/2006	7,000	30/4/2011	14,091
5	450	30/3/2006	7,000	30/4/2011	14,091
6	451	30/3/2006	6,000	30/4/2011	12,078

 

The O.P. represented by Managing Partner is hereby directed to pay the F.D.R/s. amount matured to the complainant/s as mentioned in column No.6 with interest at the rate of 8% from the dates mentioned at column No.5 as shown in the table above respectively till realization of the entire amount.

          So also, the O.P. Finance Corporation represented by its Managing Partner 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.P. within 30 days from the date of the order.

          If the order is not complied within 30 days the O.P. Finance Corporation represented by its managing partner 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: 30^th day of March 2015).

                   Member               Member            President.

gm*