Karnataka

Belgaum

CC/796/2014

Sunita B Betageri - Complainant(s)

Versus

Managing Directotr of Guru Teak Investment (Mysore) Pvt Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

S.K. Patil

22 Sep 2015

ORDER

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

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 as agreed in respect of Teak Bonds bearing no C-36939.

          2) In the complaint amongst other facts it is alleged that the complainant has invested a sum of Rs.5,000/- on 31/01/2004 with O.P. in plan No.C-1 for 9 years  and maturity date was 31/01/2013 and maturity amount being Rs.12,500/- and it was promised by the O.Ps. to pay interim return. The O.Ps. have issued acknowledgement to the complainant for the amount payable on 12/7/2012 in respect of one acknowledgement for Rs.32,000/- under acknowledgement bearing No.443497 duly sealed and signed by the O.Ps.

          3) Despite service of notice, both O.Ps. have remained ex-parte.

          4) In support of the claim made in the complaint, the complainant has filed her affidavit and produced certain documents. 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.

REASONS

          7) Without repeating the facts mentioned at the beginning it has been proved by the complainant that he has invested the amount under O.P. in plan No.C-1 for 9 years  and maturity date was 31/01/2013 and maturity amount being Rs.12,500/- and it was promised by the O.Ps. to pay interim return. The O.Ps. have also issued an acknowledgement on 12/7/2012 in respect of one acknowledgement under bearing Nos.443497 duly sealed and signed by the O.Ps. Said claim of the complainant has not been denied or disputed by the O.Ps. Hence, considering the facts alleged in the complaint as well as stated by the complainant in the affidavit which corroborated by the documents, has been proved. Hence, prima-facie the complainant is entitled for the said amount.  Inspite of demands made, the O.Ps. failed to pay the amount due. Hence, the deficiency in service is proved.

8) Considering the facts and material on record, at this stage, the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. Accordingly following order;

ORDER

          The complaint is partly allowed.

          The O.Ps. represented by the Managing Director  and Director jointly are severally are directed to pay a sum of Rs.12,500/-+32,000=44,500/-  to the complainant with interest at the rate of 10% P.A. from 01/02/2013 in respect of bond amount and from 19/10/2012 in respect of acknowledgment dates till realization of entire amount.

          Further the O.Ps. shall pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- to the complainant towards costs of the proceedings.

          Above order shall be complied within 45 days from the date of the order.

If the order is not complied within stipulated period, OP represented by the Managing Director  and Director jointly and severally are hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.100/- 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: 22^nd day of September 2015)

                  Member                                      President.

gm*