Karnataka

Belgaum

CC/803/2014

Narayan D Chavan - Complainant(s)

Versus

Secretary Of Bharati Mahila Cr Sou Saha Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

S.M. Gawade

22 Feb 2016

ORDER

(Order dictated by Shri. B. V. Gudli, President)

:ORDER:

          The complaint has filed complaint against Opponent U/s.12 of C. P. Act alleging deficiency in service of non payment of the amount of matured F.D.Rs.

          2) Opponent appeared with counsel and filed his objection.

          3) In support of the claim of the complainant, complainant has filed his affidavit by way of evidence and original F.D.R.’s are 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 complaint has proved deficiency in service on the part of the opponent and entitle to the reliefs sough?

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

::REASONS::

          7) On the perusal contents of the complaint and affidavit filed by the complainant, the complainant has stated that the complainant had deposited the amount in the opponent souhard sahakari in the form fixed deposits under Re-Investment plan. The fixed deposit made by the complainant are as under:

Sl. No.	F.D.R. and A/c. No.	Date of F.D.	F.D. Amount	Date of maturity	Maturity Amount
1	2	3	4	5	6
1	21141	3/9/2010	5,834/-	3/9/2012	6,767/-
	21142	3/9/2010	23,977/-	3/9/2012	27,813/-
	5515	22/4/2004	1,500/-	22/10/2010	3,000/-
	5581	28/5/2004	1,500/-	28/11/2010	3,000/-
	5611	22/6/2004	1,500/-	22/12/2010	3,000/-
	5667	29/7/2004	1,500/-	29/1/2011	3,000/-
	5707	30/8/2004	1,500/-	29/2/2012	3,000/-
	5784	27/12/2004	1,500/-	27/3/2012	3,000/-

          8) The complainant requested to return the matured F.D.R’s amount. Inspite of that opponent went on postponing the same by assingning one or other reasons. Hence that amounts to deficiency of service as contemplated under the provision of the C. P. Act,1986.

          9)  On perusal of affidavit and objection of opponent, the opponent admitting certain facts and denying certain facts of the complaint. The opponent admits the F.D.R.’s which are deposited by the complainant under the scheme Reinvestment plain of which are matured on the date as mentioned in column No.5 and the maturity vale are shown in column No.6 in above table. And denies that, the complainant approached the souhard sahakari so many times after the maturity of the said F.D.R.’s The opponent further contends that, the complainant is not entitled to any interest from the respective date of maturity of said deposits, because the deposits made by the complainant was under the scheme of Reinvestment Plain and that to considered with saving deposits account and shall earn only 4% p.a. interest and that fact was informed through the publication on the notice board and also through letter. Hence the complaint is not maintainable in the eye of law.

          10) On perusal of F.D.R.’s produced by the complaint which are matured and F.D.Rs. are standing in the name of complainant. This fact is admitted by the opponent. The contention of the opponent is that, the complainant is not entitled to any interest from the respective date of maturity of said deposits because the deposits made by the complainant was under the scheme of Reinvestment Plain and that to considered with saving deposit accounts and shall earn only 4% p.a. interest and that fact was informed through the publication on the notice board and also through letter. Even though considering this fact, there is no any document coming forth before this forum in regards to publication of notice by the opponent and in regards to intimation given to the complainant. Hence contention of opponent cannot be believed and accepted.

          11) The complainant requested the opponent to return the said F.D.R’s. amount and inspite of the demands made to the  opponent has not paid the amount hence, the claim of the complainant that demands made the amount remained unpaid has to be believe and accepted. It is well settled legal position that non payment of the amount deposited, amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opponent.

          12)  Taking into 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.

          13)  Accordingly, following order.

ORDER

          The complaint is partly allowed.

          The Opponent represented by the secretary is hereby directed to pay to the complainant as order below;

Sl. No.	F.D.R. and A/c. No.	Date of F.D.	F.D. Amount	Date of maturity	Maturity Amount
1	2	3	4	5	6
1	5415	26/2/2004	1,500/-	26/8/2009	3,000/-
	5476	30/3/2004	1,500/-	30/9/2010	3,000/-
	5515	22/4/2004	1,500/-	22/10/2010	3,000/-
	5581	28/5/2004	1,500/-	28/11/2010	3,000/-
	5611	22/6/2004	1,500/-	22/12/2010	3,000/-
	5667	29/7/2004	1,500/-	29/1/2011	3,000/-
	5707	30/8/2004	1,500/-	29/2/2012	3,000/-
	5784	27/12/2004	1,500/-	27/3/2012	3,000/-

The Matured  amount to the complainant as mentioned in column No. 6 with future interest at the rate of 8% p.a. from the date mentioned in column No.5 till realization of the entire amount.       

        The opponent represented by the secretary is hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs. 2,000/- toward costs of the proceedings to the complainant.

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

         If the order is not complied within stipulated period, opponent is hereby directed to pay a 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 this 22^nd day of February 2016)

Member                          Member                             President

gm*