IN THE DIST.CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM BELAGAVI.
Dated this 30th day of August 2016
Complaint Nos.97/2016
Present: 1) Shri. B.V.Gudli, President
2) Shri. V.S. Gotakhindi, Member
3) Smt.Sunita Member
-***-
Complainant:
Smt. Gangawwa Sidram Shinde,
Age: Major, Occ: Agriculture,
R/o: Morab, Tal : Raibag,
Dist. Belagavi.
(By Sri.R.B.Shettennavar & Miss. S I Adin, Advocate, Advocates)
V/s.
Opponents:
1) Shri. Raju Kallappa Jagadale,
Managing Partner,
Shri. Venkateshwar Finance Corporation,
Morab, Tal : Raibag, Dist. Belagavi.
2) Shri. Sadashiv Shetteappa Asode,
Partner,
Shri. Venkateshwar Finance Corporation,
Morab, Tal: Raibag, Dist. Belagavi.
3) Shri. Pratap Bhim Patil,
Partner,
Shri. Venkateshwar Finance Corporation,
Morab, Tal: Raibag, Dist. Belagavi.
4) Shri. Babu Laxman Hidayi,
Partner,
Shri. Venkateshwar Finance Corporation,
Morab, Tal: Raibag, Dist. Belagavi.
5) Shri. Sidram Namadev Bhosle,
Partner,
Shri. Venkateshwar Finance Corporation,
Morab, Tal: Raibag, Dist. Belagavi.
6) Shri. Arjun Maruti Patil,
Partner,
Shri. Venkateshwar Finance Corporation,
Morab, Tal: Raibag, Dist. Belagavi.
7) Shri. Tippanna Hajjagol,
Partner,
Shri. Venkateshwar Finance Corporation,
Morab, Tal: Raibag, Dist. Belagavi.
(O.Ps. are placed ex-parte,)
(Order dictated by Shri. B.V.Gudli, President)
ORDER
The relevant facts of the case is that the complainant has filed the complaint u/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 against the O.Ps. alleging deficiency in banking service of non refund of the deposit amount in pigmy account.
2) In-spite of service of notice O.Ps. remained absent. Hence placed ex-parte.
3) In support of the claim in the complaint, complainant has filed affidavit and original pigmy passbook 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 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) On perusal contents of the complainant and affidavit filed by the complainant, the complainant had opned an account in OP finance under Account No.390 for one year from 28.11.2013 to 28.11.2014 & in the year January 2015 she got renewed the said account and paid an amount of Rs.100/- per day till 22.01.2015. Further, daily one of the OP firm’s pigmy collector use to collect Rs.100/- from complainant, he has collected totally an amount of Rs.32,300/- from complainant from 28.11.2013 to 22.01.2015. In the month of January 2015 the complainant approached the OPs & requested to reutn the above said amount with interest, the OPs postponed to make payment for one or other reasons and till today OPs have not paid any amount. Hence complainant issued legal notice to OPs on 08.12.2015 through her counsel to return the SB amount along with accruable interest. The notice was duly served upon OPs but inspite of receipt of notice, the OPs not paid the amount. Hence opponents committed deficiency in service as contemplated under the provision of the consumer protection act 1986.
8) On perusal evidence affidavit of the complainant, the pigmy deposit passbook produced by the complainant is in the name of the complainant and after demands made by the complainant the opponents have not paid the passbook amount with interest. Hence, the claim of the complainant that inspite of the demands made the amount remained unpaid, has to be believed and accepted. Inspite of service of notice the OPs are failed to appear before the forum. Hence they have been placed as exparte. It is well settled legal position that non payment of the amount deposited, amounts to deficiency in service.
9) Taking into consideration of the facts, evidence on record and the discussion made here before deficiency in service on the part of the O.P’s have been proved.
10) 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.
11) Accordingly, following order.
ORDER
The complaint is partly allowed.
The O.Ps. represented by the Managing Partner and Partner as shown in the cause title are hereby directed and liable to pay Rs.32,300/- under Account No.390, to the complainant with 6% interest P.A. from 22.01.2015 till realization.
Further, the O.Ps. represented by the Managing Partner and Partner as shown in the cause title and liable to pay Rs.3,000/- 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 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.
(Order dictated, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on: 30th day of August 2016)
Member Member President.
