Karnataka

Belgaum

CC/583/2015

Balasaheb B Jadhav - Complainant(s)

Versus

Nitin G Rangole. The Chairman Of Shree Maruti Saha Pat Sanstha Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

R A Banne

05 Apr 2016

ORDER

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

 

ORDER

          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 F.D.R. amount.

          2) In-spite of service of notice O.Ps. have appeared through counsel but did not filed objection etc., 

          3) In support of the claim in the complaint, complainant has filed affidavit and original F.D.R., is produced by the complainant.

          4) We have heard the argument of the complainant counsel 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) On perusal contents of the complainant and affidavit filed by the complainant. The opponents had offered to pay the better rate of interest and as such the complainant had invested the money in form fixed deposit scheme. He has deposited the following sum with opponents details are as below;

SL.No.	FDR No.	Date of Deposit	F.D. Amount	Interest	Period of deposit
1	00555	17/11/2000	33,435/-	15.25%	1 year & above

 

          The complainant requested the opponents to return the matured amount, inspite of that opponents went on postponing the same by assigning one or other reasons. In-spite of that the opponents did not return the F.D.R. amount to the complainant. Hence opponents committed deficiency in service as contemplated under the provision of the consumer protection act 1986.

8) On perusal documents F.D.R. produced by the complainant he had deposited a sum of Rs.33,435/- on 17/11/2000 and the agreed rate of interest was 15.25%. F.D.R. is standing in the name of the complainant. On perusal evidence affidavit of the complainant, after maturity of F.D.R. the opponents has not paid F.D.R. amount. Hence, the claim of the complainant that inspite 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.

          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 complaint is partly allowed.

The O.Ps. represented by the Chairman, Vice Chairman and Directors are hereby directed to pay amount of Rs.33,435/- in respect of F.D.R. No.00555 to the complainant with interest at the rate of 15.5% P.A. for the period from 17/11/2000 to 17/11/2001 and with future interest at the rate of 9% P.A. from 18/11/2001 till realization of entire amount.

          Further, the O.Ps. represented by the Chairman, Vice Chairman and Directors are hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- to the complainant towards costs of the proceedings.

          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.

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

 (Order dictated, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on: 5^th day of April 2016)

Member                Member                    President.

gm*