Karnataka

Belgaum

CC/740/2013

Imambi S Momin - Complainant(s)

Versus

Noormohammed U Momin Chairman Of Shahe Nyamat Cr Sou Saha Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

M.V.Vardhamane.

02 Mar 2015

ORDER

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

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 of the matured F.D.Rs.

          2) O.P. No.1 appeared through counsel filed his version and contended that since the committee has been superseded by the competent Authority and appointed an administrator, he is no more chairman and not in possession and custody of the records of the society and not looking after the day today affairs of the society and as such not liable to the claims of the complainant. Further, it is contended that the complaints are barred by limitation and that the institution has got valuable property and has advanced loans to various borrowers running into crores or rupees.

3) In support of the claim in the complaint, complainant has filed affidavit and certain documents including original F.D.R. is produced. We have heard arguments of the both counsels and perused the record.

4) Now the point for our consideration is that whether the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. and that the complainant is entitled to the reliefs sought?

5) Finding on the point is partly in affirmative for the following reasons.

REASONS

6) Oral and documentary evidence on record establish that the complainant kept the amount in fixed deposits with the O.P. society under FDR No. 307 and 319 bearing A/c No. 898, 911 a sum of Rs. 2,000/- and Rs.14,000/- on 23/10/2007, 21/1/2008 respectively for a period of 12 and 84 months and the maturity date was 23/10/2008, 21/1/2015 and maturity value is Rs.2,200/- and Rs.28,000/- respectively. These facts alleged in the complaint is stated by the complainant in the affidavit. That statement is supported by the original F.D.Rs. The F.D.R. No.319 bearing A/c. 911 during the time of filing the case the F.D.R. was to be matured on 21/1/2015 and the case filed by the complainant is on 12/11/2013. The said F.D.R. is pre matured one but the said FDR is matured as on the date of passing the said order. Hence, we considered the said FDR. as matured FDR and accordingly pass the order. Moreover the O.P.No.1 has not raised any contention neither in his objection nor in the affidavit filed.

7) O.P. No.1 appeared through counsel filed his version and contended that since the committee has been superseded by the competent Authority and appointed an administrator, he is no more chairman and not in possession and custody of the records of the society and not looking after the day today affairs of the society and as such not liable to the claims of the complainants. Further, it is contended that the complaints are barred by limitation and that the institution has got valuable property and has advanced loans to various borrowers running into crores or rupees which have to recover by the person who is incharge day to day affairs of the financial institution. Therefore the complainant has to approached the person who is incharge of the affairs of the institution to seek refund of his amount. For this contention O.Ps. have not produced a single document to show that the administrator has taken the charge. Hence their contention cannot be accepted.

8) The complaint against O.P.2 is dismissed.

8) The grievance of the complainant is that after maturity inspite of the demands made the O.Ps. have not paid the amount. It is not at all the contention of any of the O.Ps. that the deposits are refunded to the complainant. 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 the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in (2011) SCCR 268 as well as Hon’ble Apex Commission in a ruling reported in 2013 (2) CPR 574 as well as the purpose and object of the Act, absolutely it is just and necessary to impose heavy cost on daily basis if order remains uncomplied within period fixed for compliance of the order, so as to have feeling and pinch.

10) Considering the fact, evidence and discussion made here before, following order.

ORDER

          A.   The complaint is partly allowed.

B. The O.Ps. society represented by the Chairman  is hereby directed to pay Rs.2,200/- and Rs.28,000/- to the complainant in respect of FDR No. 307, 319 and bearing A/c. No. 898, 911 with interest at rate of 10% P.A. from 23/10/2008, 21/1/2015 till realization of the entire amount.

C. Complaint against O.P.2 is dismissed.

D. Further, The Op society represented by the Chairman is hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- to the complainant towards costs of the proceedings.

E.  Order shall be complied within one month from the date of the order. If the order is not complied within stipulated period, OP society represented by the Chairman is 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.

 (Order dictated, corrected & then pronounced in the Open Forum on this 2^nd day of March 2015).

                    Member               Member               President.

gm*