Karnataka

Belgaum

CC/243/2014

Govindrao Chinchinikar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Represented By Its Board Of Committee of Shahe Nyt Cr Sou Saha Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

M S Patil

23 Feb 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.R.

          2) Inspite of service of notices O.P 1B to 1K remained absent. Hence, O.Ps. 1B to 1K placed ex-parte. O.P. No. 1A appeared through counsel filed his version and contended that since the committee has been superseded by the competent Authority and appointed an administrator, he is no more chairman and not in possession and custody of the records of the society and not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.

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 complainant’s counsel 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.262 bearing A/c. No.3160 a sum of Rs.50,000/- on 24/9/2007 for a period of 78 months and the maturity date was 24/3/2014 and maturity value is to be paid is Rs.1,00,000/-. These facts alleged in the complaint are stated by the complainant in the affidavit. That statement is supported by the original F.D.R.

7) Inspite of service of notices O.P 1B to 1K remained absent. Hence, O.Ps. 1B to 1K placed ex-parte. O.P. No. 1A appeared through counsel filed his version and contended that since the committee has been superseded by the competent Authority and appointed an administrator, he is no more chairman and not in possession and custody of the records of the society and not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, they have also not filed any affidavit to this regard. Hence their contention cannot be accepted.

8) The grievance of the complainants 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 complainants. Hence, the claim of the complainants 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 and Vice-Chairman and Directors as shown in the cause title jointly and severally are hereby directed to pay Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant in respect of FDR No. 262 and bearing A/c. No. 3160 with interest at rate of 8% P.A. from 24/3/2014 till realization of the entire amount.

C. Further, The Op society represented by the Chairman and Vice-Chairman and Directors as shown in the cause title jointly and severally are hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- to the complainant towards costs of the proceedings.

D.  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 and Vice-Chairman and Directors as shown in the cause title jointly and severally 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 & then pronounced in the Open Forum on this 23^rd day of February 2015).

 

 

                    Member               Member               President.

gm*