Karnataka

Belgaum

CC/362/2015

Kasturi S Pujari - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Chairman Neelambika Co-Op Cr Scty Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

K S Ramapure

16 Oct 2015

ORDER

(Order dictated by Smt. Sunita, 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) Despite service of notice, both O.Ps. have remained ex-parte.

          3) In support of the claim made in the complaint, the complainant has filed her affidavit and produced certain documents. We have heard the arguments and perused the records.

          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 entitled to the reliefs sought?

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

REASONS

          6) On perusal contents of the complaint and affidavit filed by the complainant. The complainant deposited Rs.27,000/- on 5/12/2002 under F.D.R. A/c. No.19 and maturity date was 5/12/2003 with interest 12.25% P.A. After maturity of the said amount the O.Ps. requested to return the maturity F.D. amount but the opponents postpone the same one or other reasons. Inspite of repeated request and demands made by the complainant, O.Ps. have failed to pay the F.D.R. amount. Thereafter the complainant got issued legal notice calling upon opponents to pay the maturity F.D. amount. Inspite of service of notice opponents failed to comply the notice.

7) On perusal evidence affidavit of the complainant, after maturity of F.D.R. the opponents have not paid F.D.R. amount. Hence, the claim of the complainant 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.

8) 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.

          9) Hence we proceed to pass the following order;

 

ORDER

          The complaint is partly allowed.

          The O.Ps. represented by the Chairman and Secretary jointly are severally are directed to pay a sum of Rs.27,000/- to the complainant in respect of F.D.R. A/c. No.19 with interest at the rate of 12.25% P.A. for the period from 5/12/2002 to 5/12/2003 and with future interest at the rate of 8% P.A. from 6/12/2003 till realization of entire amount.

          Further the O.Ps. shall pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- to the complainant towards costs of the proceedings.

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

If the order is not complied within stipulated period, OP represented by the Chairman and Secretary 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 and then pronounced in the open Forum on: 16^th day of October 2015)

                  Member                      Member            President.

gm*