Karnataka

Belgaum

CC/413/2014

Abhay T Kalaje - Complainant(s)

Versus

sanjay B Khot Chairman Of Kedarling Urban Co Op Cr Scty - Opp.Party(s)

V B Sankpal

23 Mar 2015

ORDER

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

:: O R D E R ::

          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 amount of the matured F.D.R.

          2) Inspite of service of notice O.P.2 and 7 remained absent and placed exparte. The O.P.No.4 is reported is to be dead. The O.Ps. No.1,3,5,6,8,9 and 10 have appeared through Advocate and filed objections. The O.P.1 in his objection contended that present complaint is barred by limitation and reason assigned in delay condonation application is not worth to be believed. Therefore the complaint filed by the complaint is not maintainable. Further O.P.1 submitted that he has resigned from the post of directorship he has not interested to hold any post in the society. Further he contended that he has not responsible for any previous any future transaction of the society. The resignation was O.p.1 was accepted, the O.p.1 is not all concerned to the above said society. Therefore the present complaint filed by the complainant against this O.P. by showing him as a chairman is not at all maintainable and liable to be dismissed against this O.P. Further, he submitted that the managing director of Karnataka State Souhard Sahakari Niymit Bangalore had passed detailed order on 29/9/2009 Sri. S.S.Deshmane as a administrator of O.P. society by dissolving managing committee of the said society. In view of the said order passed by the competent authority the administrator is proper and necessary party to the proceedings. 

          3) The O.Ps.No.3,5,6,8,9 and 10 are filed objection and contended that the complaint is false and frivolous and not maintainable in eye of law. These O.Ps. on 2 at para 4 contended that the complainant out of is income saved the money and invested in the fixed deposit scheme at that time the complainant came in contact with the O.Ps. and trusted on him as well as O.Ps. explained the scheme fix deposit and promised that maturity amount with interest can be released immediately are all correct and as such same are admitted by these O.Ps. etc.,

4) These O.ps. further submits that they are not the directors of the O.Ps. society but they are directors of Nipani branch and they are made unnecessary party to the proceedings and they are not entitled to answer the claim of the complaint etc.,

          5) In support of the claim of the complaint, complainant has filed his affidavit and original F.D.R. is produced by the complainant and O.Ps.1,3,5,6,8,9 and 10 have filed their affidavits and produced the certain documents.

          6) We have heard the arguments and perused the records.

          7) 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?

          8) Our finding on the point is partly in affirmative, for the following reasons.

:: R E A S O N S ::

          9) From the evidence on record it has been proved that in F.D.R. No. 001581 and A/c. No.828 a sum of Rs.12,000/- on 20/6/2003 was kept by the complainant in the O.P. society for the period of 46 days upto one year and date of maturity was 20/6/2004 and agreed rate of interest @ 13% P.A.

          10) The O.Ps. No.1,3,5,6,8,9 and 10 have appeared through Advocate and filed objections. The O.P.1 in his objection contended that present complaint is barred by limitation and reason assigned in delay condonation application is not worth to be believed. Therefore the complaint filed by the complaint is not maintainable. Further O.P.1 submitted that he has resigned from the post of directorship he has not interested to hold any post in the society. Further he contended that he has not responsible for any previous any future transaction of the society. The resignation was O.p.1 was accepted, the O.p.1 is not all concerned to the above said society. Therefore the present complaint filed by the complainant against this O.P. by showing him as a chairman is not at all maintainable and liable to be dismissed against this O.P. Further, he submitted that the managing director of Karnataka State Souhard Sahakari Niymit Bangalore had passed detailed order on 29/9/2009 Sri. S.S.Deshmane as a administrator of O.P. society by dissolving managing committee of the said society. In view of the said order passed by the competent authority the administrator is proper and necessary party to the proceedings. 

          11) The O.Ps.No.3,5,6,8,9 and 10 are filed objection and contended that the complaint is false and frivolous and not maintainable in eye of law.

These O.Ps. on 2 at para 4 contended that the complainant out of is income saved the money and invested in the fixed deposit scheme at that time the complainant came in contact with the O.Ps. and trusted on him as well as O.Ps. explained the scheme fix deposit and promised that maturity amount with interest can be released immediately are all correct and as such same are admitted by these O.Ps. etc.,

12) These O.ps. further submits that they are not the directors of the O.Ps. society but they are directors of Nipani branch and they are made unnecessary party to the proceedings and they are not entitled to answer the claim of the complaint etc., The O.Ps. submitted that the managing director of Karnataka State Souhard Sahakari Niymit Bangalore had passed detailed order on 29/9/2009 Sri. S.S.Deshmane as a administrator of O.P. society by dissolving managing committee of the said society. In view of the said order passed by the competent authority the administrator is proper and necessary party to the proceedings. Further the O.ps. contended that Sri. Sanjay Bandu Khot and Secretary Chandrakant Nimane are the main persons who are the looking after the transaction of Galataga branch but these O.Ps. that is directors as shown in the cause title are not at all concerned with the Galataga branch. The O.ps. further submits that they have not at all seen the complainant and they do not know anything about the complaint. The O.Ps. further submitted that the complainant has deposited the amount in Nipani branch and he has not made the party the Nipani branch directors to the present complaint. Hence, the complaint is to be dismissed for non joinder of necessary parties etc.,

13) The most important point in the objection and affidavit filed by the O.P.No.3,5,6,8,9 and10 at page 2 para 4 of the complaint objection and affidavit, in this para these O.Ps. admit that the complainant has deposited in the F.D. scheme when he came in contact with the O.Ps. society and the O.Ps. promised that they are going to pay the agreed amount with interest and the contents alleged by the complainant at para No.A of the complaint are admitted by these O.Ps. stating that all are correct. On the other hand, at subsequent paras of the affidavit and objection they totally deny that the complainant never approached these O.ps. and they do not know the complainant at any point of time and there is no any transaction between the complainant as these O.Ps. are representing separate and independent body of Nipani branch. It is to be noted that on one pretext they state that the complainant approached the society and they admitted the fixed deposit and on another stretch they stated that the complainant is nowhere concerned with the O.Ps. this itself is show that they have to avoid the liability contended that they have never met the complainant at any point of time and more over to show that they are not the directors of this O.Ps. society not produced a single document and moreover the document so produced to show the board of directors is been signed by the Assistant Director the seal is of O.Ps. branch itself wherein the directors that is these O.Pa. names are appearing. Hence their version that they are not at all concerned with the O.Ps. society cannot be believed and accepted. And further that only the chairman and the secretary is concerned with the O.P. society is also not accepted and believed. The another contention that Sri.S.S. Deshmane is an administrator appointed to the O.Ps. society to this the O.Ps. have not produced, any documents to show that Sri. Deshmane has taken charge of the society as an administrator and proceeded further. Hence even there is an order of Karnataka Co operative society, the O.Ps. have fail to establish that the administrator above name have ever taken charge of the society.   

14) Grievance of the complainant is that after maturity inspite of the repeated requests the maturity value was not paid and hence there is deficiency in service. These facts alleged in the complaint are asserted by the complainant in the evidence affidavit. Hence, deficiency in service is proved. The complainant has also issued legal notice through the counsel prior to filing the complaint. The O.Ps. have not responded to the notice issued by the complainant and the same is contended in the affidavit as well as the complaint filed by the complainant.

          15) 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.

          16) Accordingly, following order.

ORDER

          The complaint is partly allowed.

          The O.Ps. represented by the Chairman, Secretary and directors as shown in the cause title jointly and severally are hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs. 12,000/- in respect of F.D.R. No. 001581 and A/c. No.828 to the complainant with interest at the rate of 13% P.A. from 20/6/2003 to 20/6/2004 and thereafter at the rate of interest 8% P.A. from 20/6/2004 till realization of the entire amount.

          Further, The O.Ps. represented by the Chairman, Secretary 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.

          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: 23^rd day of March 2015)

Member                    Member                                President.

gm*