Karnataka

Belgaum

CC/657/2013

Sulabha M Pawale - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

M.S. Patil

01 Dec 2014

ORDER

                                                          (Order dictated by Shri. V.S.Gotakhindi, 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 balance in the Savings Account.

          2) Inspite of service of notice the O.P.1 remained absent. Hence, O.P.1 placed exparte.

          3) The 2^nd O.P. in the version denied deficiency in service contending that the complainant has opted not to approach the O.P. and the O.P. further stated that the complaint can at any time come over to the Sahakari and withdraw the amount. Further, that they had given paper publication in regards to the amount deposits of the customers and requested the members to operate accounts. The O.P. prayed to dismiss the complaint as same is not maintainable on the point of jurisdiction.  

          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 Savings Account No. 980 the complainant has balance of Rs. 23,008/- as on 20/10/2011 with the O.P.

          9) The grievance of the complainant is that the O.P. failed to pay the balance in the Savings Account. 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. in the version denied deficiency in service contending that the complainant has opted not to approach the O.P. and the O.P. further stated that the complaint can at any time come over to the Sahakari and withdraw the amount. Further, that they had given paper publication in regards to the amount deposits of the customers and requested the members to operate accounts. The O.P. prayed to dismiss the complaint as same is not maintainable on the point of jurisdiction.  The O.P. further contended that in the objection that the S.B. Account is till today operated by the complainant even office was shifted to other place. After going through the records we notice that the O.Ps. even after receipt of legal notice have not replied to the claim made by the complainant in the notice. On the other hand, the contention of the O.P. that the complainant is operating the account till today, but the S.B. Account shows the last date of operation of the account and the entry made is dated 20/10/2011 and thereafter there are no entry made in the S.B. Account. Even believing the O.P. that the complainant is operating the account till today the O.Ps. ought to have produced statement of account to show that the complainant is operating the account as contended by the O.P. but there no document coming forward to believe the version of the O.P. as contended in para No.5 of the version. The O.P. has contended in para No.4 of the affidavit that they are ready to make the payment of the amount but the complainant is denying to receive the amount insisting the O.ps. to receive the amount through forum only. If at all really the O.Ps. were interested in and ready to make the payment of amount what prevented them to reply to the notice issued by the complainant before filing of the complaint and would have made payment by the calling the complainant immediately after receipt of the notice. Hence, looking to the version and affidavits filed by the both the complainant and O.P. we are the opinion that there is clear deficiency on the service on the part of the O.P. for non payment amount lying the S.B. account of the complainant.

          11. 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.

          12) Accordingly, following order.

                                                                                        O R D E R

          The complaint is partly allowed.

          The O.P. Souhard  represented by the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer as shown in the cause title are hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.23,008/- to the complainant the balance amount in Savings Account No.980 with interest at the rate of 6% P.A. from 20/10/2011 till realization of the entire amount.

So also, the O.P. Souhard represented by the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer as shown in the cause title 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: 1^st day of December 2014)

 

 

Member                Member                            President.

gm*