Karnataka

Belgaum

CC/589/2014

Gopal C Modagekar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Paragouda A Halappannavar. Seceretary of Shri Kapilnath Co-Op Cr Scty Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

L.Y.Patil

15 Jun 2015

ORDER

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

ORDER

          U/s. 12 of the C.P. Act, the complainant has filed the complaint against the O.Ps. alleging deficiency in service of non payment of the amount of the F.D.R.

          2) The O.Ps. No. 1,3 to 10 are appeared through advocate, filed their objection contended that some of the board of directors of the O.P. society have tendered resignation and some other persons have taken charge of the society as new directors of O.P. society. The new management has assured to make payments to the customers. The O.P.1 further contended that as new management assured to make to the customers. Further this O.Ps. submits that one Sri. Khangani has taken the charge of the O.Ps. society. O.P. No.2 inspite of service of the notice remained absent and is placed exparte.         

3) The complainant has filed his affidavit and documents are produced. O.P.1 has filed his affidavit and objection.

          4) We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for complainant and O.P.1 have 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.

:: R E A S O N S ::

          7) The oral and the documentary evidence on record establish that under F.D.R. Nos. 1221, 1251, 1252, 1253 and 1254 the complainant had kept a sum of Rs.32,000/-, Rs.20,000/-, Rs.20,000/-, Rs.20,000/- and Rs.26,000/- respectively on 7/5/2008  in fixed deposit with the O.P. society and the maturity value is Rs.64,000/-, Rs.40,000/-, Rs.40,000/- Rs.40,000/- and Rs.52,000/- as on 7/11/2014, 7/2/2015 respectively.

          8) The O.Ps. No. 1,3 to 10 are appeared through advocate, filed their objection contended that some of the board of directors of the O.P. society have tendered resignation and some other persons have taken charge of the society as new directors of O.P. society. The new management has assured to make payments to the customers. The O.P.1 further contended that as new management assured to make to the customers. Further this O.Ps. submits that one Sri. Khangani has taken the charge of the O.Ps. society. The said Chairman Khanagani has appointed his wife Smt. Drakshayani wife of Murgesh Khanagani as managing director of the O.P. society and thereby the entire charge was taken by said Drakshayani Khanagani from O.p.1 therefore this O.p.1 is not a secretary of the O.Ps. society from that date till today. Further the O.P.1 contended that Sri. M.M. Khanagani and his wife D.M. Khanagani who are fully responsible and liable to pay deposit of the complainant. For these reasons the O.Ps. submits that complaint be dismissed against this O.P.1, as it is not maintainable for misjoinder of this O.P. as party to this complaint. For this O.P. has not produced a single document to show that Mrs. M.M.Khanagani and his wife Smt. D.M. Khanagani has taken the charge. The complainant produced document wherein it shows that the names mentioned in the cause title are the directors of the society. Hence these persons are liable to pay the amount of the complainant. O.P. No.2 inspite of service of the notice remained absent and is placed exparte.     

9) Grievance of the complainant is that after maturity inspite of the demands made the amount remained unpaid. The complainant prior to filing of this complaint had issued legal notice through his counsel to all O.Ps. This fact is stated in the affidavit and considering the entire facts, it is proved that inspite of the demands made the amount remained unpaid and the said act of the O.Ps. amounts to deficiency in service.

10) 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.

11) Accordingly, following order.

ORDER

          The complaint is partly allowed.

          The O.P’s. represented by the Chairman and secretary and directors as shown in the cause title jointly and severally are hereby directed to pay total sum of Rs.2,20,306/- to the complainant in respect of F.D.R. Nos. 1221, 1251, 1252, 1253 and 1254 with interest at the rate of 9% P.A. from 7/11/2014 in respect of F.D.R. No.1221 and from 7/2/2015 in respect of other F.D.Rs. respectively till realization of the entire amount.

          So also, O.P’s. represented by the Chairman and Secretary and directors as shown in the cause title jointly and severally are hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- to the complainant towards costs of the proceedings.

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

          If the order is not complied within 30 days the O.P’s. represented by the Chairman and secretary and directors as shown in the cause title jointly and severally are hereby directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.50/- per day till compliance of the order.

(Order dictated, corrected & then pronounced in the Open Forum on this 15^th day of June 2015).

Member                    Member                    President.

gm*