Karnataka

Belgaum

CC/312/2015

Shruti R Nalawade - Complainant(s)

Versus

Mahadev B Daware Chairman Of Shree Shrimanyogi Cr Sou Saha Ltd. Sankeshwar - Opp.Party(s)

D S Pachandi And S M Kulkarni

29 Apr 2016

ORDER

       (Order dictated by Smt. Sunita, Member)

: ORDER :

          The complaint has filed complaint against Opponent U/s.12 of C. P. Act alleging deficiency in service of non payment of the amount of matured F.D.Rs.

          2) Opponents appeared through their counsel but not filed objection and affidavit.        

         3) In support of the claim of the complaint, complainant has filed his affidavit by way of evidence and original F.D.Rs. are produced by the complainant.

          4) We have heard the argument of complainant’s  and the argument of op’s. taken as heard and perused the records.

          5) Now the point for our consideration is that whether the complaint has proved deficiency in service on the part of the opponent and entitle to the reliefs sough?

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

: REASONS :

 

7) On the perusal contents of the complaint and affidavit filed by the complainant, the complainant has stated that, for the future maintenance and to fulfill the financial problems in future the complainant had deposited the amount in the opponents Souhard Sahakari in the form fixed deposits. The fixed deposits made by the complainant are as under:

 

Sl. No.	F.D.R. No.	Date of F.D.	F.D. Amount	Date of maturity	Maturity Amount
1	2	3	4	5	6
1	2259	6/2/2013	50,000/-	6/2/2014	56,000/-
	2260	6/2/2013	50,000/-	6/2/2014	56,000/-
	2261	6/2/2013	50,000/-	6/2/2014	56,000/-
	2262	6/2/2013	50,000/-	6/2/2014	56,000/-

         

8) The complainant requested the opponents to return the matured amount, inspite of that opponent went on postponing the same by assigning one or other reasons. Unfortunately the opponents have issued a false and frivolous legal notice to the complainant stating that their society is facing bad times and is not having sufficient funds and expressed their inability to pay the maturity amounts and to the said false notice the complainant has also issued the reply notice to the opponents. Hence opponents committed deficiency in service as contemplated under the provision of the consumer protection act 1986.

       9) In this complaint, the complainant is represented by the minor guardian, her Father. After service of notice, Opponents No. 1 and 2 appeared through their counsel and did not filed objection and evidence affidavit. Hence the objection of O.P’s. taken as not filed on 11/11/2015.  After granting the sufficient time, the OP’s. have not argue the matter. Hence the argument of OP’s side taken as heard on 31/3/2016.

     10) On perusal evidence affidavit of the complainant, after maturity of F.D.Rs. the opponents have not paid F.D.Rs. amount. In-spite of the demands made to the O.P’s. have not paid the amount. Hence, the claim of the complainant that in-spite 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.

     11) 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.

       12) Taking into consideration of the facts, evidence on record and the discussion made here before deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. has been proved.

        13) Accordingly, following order.

ORDER

          The complaint is partly allowed.

         The Opponents represented by the Chairman and Secretary are hereby directed and liable to pay to the complainant as order below;

 

Sl. No.	F.D.R. No.	Date of F.D.	F.D. Amount	Date of maturity	Maturity Amount
1	2	3	4	5	6
1	2259	6/2/2013	50,000/-	6/2/2014	56,000/-
2	2260	6/2/2013	50,000/-	6/2/2014	56,000/-
3	2261	6/2/2013	50,000/-	6/2/2014	56,000/-
4	2262	6/2/2013	50,000/-	6/2/2014	56,000/-

 

The matured amount to the complainant as mentioned in column No.6 with future interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from 7/2/2014 respectively till realization of the entire amount.

          The opponent represented by the Chairman and Secretary is hereby directed and liable to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- towards cost of the proceedings to the complainant.

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

         If the order is not complied within stipulated period, opponent is hereby directed to pay a 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 this 28^th day of April 2016)

Member            Member                     President