Karnataka

Belgaum

CC/181/2015

Radhabai M Daddikar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Naryan K Saple Chairman Of Shree Kapilnath Co Op Cr Scty Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

H M Shahapurkar

30 Jul 2015

ORDER

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

: ORDER :

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

          2) Notices were issued against Opponents, said notices were served on opponents. Inspite of service of notice O.Ps. remained absent. Hence they have placed exparte.

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

          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 opponents and entitled to the reliefs sought?

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

:: REASONS ::

          7) The oral and documentary evidence on record establish that under F.D.R. Nos. 1449 and 1450 (two F.Ds.) the complainant had kept a sum of Rs.25,000/- each on 25/2/2011 in fixed deposit with O.P. society and the maturity value is Rs.50,000/- as on 25/5/2017 and another F.D. No.378 the complainant kept a sum of Rs.50,000/- in fixed deposit with O.P.society on 18/2/2011 for a period of 6 years and the maturity date was 18/2/2017 and agreed rate of interest was 14.5% P.A.

          8) The grievance of the complainant is that the O.P. is fail to pay the amount of F.Ds. inspite of demands made. As noted above the O.Ps. have not appeared before the forum and has not denied or disputed the case of the complainant. Prior to filing of the complaint the complainant issued notice demanding payment before maturity the complainant has made out need of the money. It is submited that there is no restriction on demanding repayment before maturity. Thus the complainant is entitled for the deposits subject to reduction of interest. Hence deficiency in service is proved.

9) On perusal contention of the affidavit and documents produced by the complainant. The complainant has proved deficiency in service.

          10) 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.

          11) Hence we proceed to pass the following order;

: ORDER :

          The complaint is partly allowed.

          The O.Ps. represented by the Chairman and Secretary and Directors shown in the cause title jointly and severally are hereby directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.50,000/- in respect of FDR No.1449 and 1450 with interest at the rate of 9% P.A. from the date of deposit i.e., 25/2/2011 till realisation of the entire amount.

Another a sum of Rs.50,000/- in respect of F.DR.378 with interest at the rate of 9% P.A. from the date of deposit i.e., 18/2/2011  till realisation of the entire amount.

          The O.Ps. represented by the Chairman and Secretary and Directors shown in the cause title jointly and severally are hereby directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards costs of the proceedings.

          Order shall be complied within one month from the date of the order.

          (Order dicted, corrected & then pronounced in the Open Forum on this 30^th day of July 2015)

          Member                    Member                    President

gm*