Karnataka

Belgaum

CC/500/2014

Mahadev G Patil. - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Chairman of Bharati Mahila Cr Sou Saha Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Y.K.Divate

06 Apr 2015

ORDER

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

ORDER

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

          2) Inspite of service of notice O.P.1 remained absent and placed exparte.

          3) The 2^nd O.P. in the version denied deficiency in service contending that the complainant never approached the O.P. and complainant is not entitled for interest after maturity etc.,

          4) The complainant and 2^nd O.P. have filed their affidavits and for the complainant certain documents are produced.

          5) We have heard the arguments of both learned counsel for complainant and O.P. and have perused the records.

          6) Now the point for our consideration is that whether the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. and entitled to the reliefs sought?

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

:: R E A S O N S ::

 

          8) The oral and the documentary evidence on record establish that under F.D.R. No. 5729, 5730 the complainant had kept a sum of Rs.40,000/- each in fixed deposit with the O.P. society on 27/9/2004 respectively  in the name of the complainant for a period of 7 and half years and the maturity value is Rs.80,000/- and maturity date was 27/3/2012 and agreed interest is 9.5% P.A. 

          9)  The grievance of the complainant is that the O.P. failed to pay the maturity value of the F.D.Rs. O.P. in the version denied the deficiency in service contending that the complainant never approached. But the oral evidence on record and the circumstances, establish that inspite of the demands made, the amount remained unpaid and hence, there is deficiency in service.

          10) The 2^nd O.P. has contended that after maturity the complainant is not entitled for interest. But, deficiency in service having been proved, the complainant is entitled for interest. Though, 2^nd O.P. further contended that the O.Ps. have informed the complainant regarding readiness to refund the deposit etc., to substantiate the same, there is no acceptable evidence.

          11) 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. 

          12) Accordingly, following order.

O R D E R

          The complaint is partly allowed.

          The O.Ps. represented by the Chairman and Secretary are hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.80,000/- each to the complainant in respect of F.D.R. No.5729, 5730 with interest at the rate of 8% P.A. from 27/3/2012 respectively till realization of the entire amount.

So also the O.Ps. represented by the Chairman and Secretary are hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- 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: 6^th day of April 2015)

Member                Member                            President.

gm*