Karnataka

Belgaum

CC/336/2014

Santosh G Mahagaon - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Chairman Of Hidkal Dam Urban Co-Op Cr Sou Scty - Opp.Party(s)

S.R.Sakri.

02 Feb 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.R.

          2) O.Ps. in the version denied the deficiency in service and have contended that there is no cause of action to file this complaint and complainant never approached the O.P. except legal notice sent and received on 11/4/2014. The O.Ps. further contended that after receipt of the notice we have called upon the complainant and explained that the arbitration cases are filed against the debtors and execution cases are pending and some recovery cases are filed and requested complainant to wait for some time. But the complainant did not heed for the request made by the O.Ps. The O.Ps. prayed to dismiss the complaint and same is false and baseless.

          3) To prove the facts alleged in the complaint the complainant has filed the affidavit and produced original F.D.Rs. and some documents. On the other hand, O.P.2 has filed his affidavit duly sworn on his behalf and O.P.1.

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

          5) 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?

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

:: R E A S O N S ::

            7) The oral and the documentary evidence establish that the complainant has kept the deposits with the O.P. society under F.D.R. No.68 on 26/3/2007 of Rs.30,000/- and matured as on 26/9/2013 for a period of 6 years 6 months at the rate of 12% P.A. These facts pleaded in the complaint are stated by the complainant in the affidavit and that statement corroborated by the original F.D.R.

          8) O.Ps. in the version denied the deficiency in service and have contended that there is no cause of action to file this complaint and complainant never approached the O.P. except legal notice sent and received on 11/4/2014. The O.Ps. further contended that after receipt of the notice we have called upon the complainant and explained that the arbitration cases are filed against the debtors and execution cases are pending and some recovery cases are filed and requested complainant to wait for some time. But the complainant did not heed for the request made by the O.Ps. The O.Ps. prayed to dismiss the complaint and same is false and baseless. The complainant has filed his affidavit stating that he request for release of maturity amount but O.Ps. did not heed to request made and there was no willingness to release amount to the complainant and the complainant have produce the original F.D.R. The O.Ps. have merely denied the contention of the complaint assigning reasons that the some cases of the pending for the recovery from the debtors but no documents are coming forth before this forum that they are making efforts for recovery. The complainant have made a prima-facie case and proved the deficiency of service on the part of the O.Ps. The O.Ps. at para No.6 of the objection have contended that they have received the legal notice demanding the amount from the complainant but it is to be observed that the complainant no were in the complaint nor in the affidavit have stated that demand notice was issued to the O.P. this itself shows that the O.Ps. have cyclostyled the objections filed in other cases and have without going through the complaint filed by the complainant have filed their objections. Hence considering the entire facts and circumstances the complainant has prima facially proved deficiency of service on the part of the O.Ps.

          9) 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.

          10) Accordingly, following order.

ORDER

          The complaint is partly allowed.

          The O.P. society represented by the Secretary and Chairman jointly and severally are hereby directed to pay the complainant a sum of Rs.30,000 in respect of F.D.R. No. 68 with interest at the rate of 12% P.A. from 26/3/2007 to 26/9/2013 and further interest at the rate of 8% P.A. from 27/9/2013  till realization of the entire amount.

          Further, the O.P. society represented by the Secretary and Chairman jointly and severally are hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- to the complainant towards costs of the proceedings.

          The above amounts shall be paid within 30 days from the date of the order.

          If the order is not complied within 30 days the O.P. Society represented by Secretary and Chairman are hereby directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.50/- per day till compliance of the order.

(Order dictated, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on: 2^nd February 2015)

 

 

          Member                    Member                   President.

gm*