Karnataka

Belgaum

CC/457/2014

Sadashiv S Muradande. - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Chairman of Krantiveer Sangoli Rayanna Cr Sou Saha Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

S.R.Sakri.

08 Sep 2014

ORDER

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

ORDER

          U/s. 12 of the C.P. Act, complainant has filed the complaint against the O.Ps. alleging deficiency in service of non payment of the amount of the F.D.R. and also amount lying in S.B. Account.

          2) O.Ps. inspite of service of the notice remained absent and are placed exparte.

          3) The complainant has filed his affidavit and documents are produced.

          4) We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for complainant 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 on record establish that under F.D.R. Nos.10901 the complainant had kept a sum of Rs.15,000/- on 26/09/2005 in fixed deposit with the O.P. society for a period of 91 days and above and the agreed rate of interest was 9.50% P.A.

          8) Further the complainant states that the O.Ps. have not paid the amount lying in S.B. Account No.4422 an amount of Rs.12,123/- as on 06/05/2014.        

9) Grievance of the complainant is that after maturity inspite of the demands made the amount remained unpaid. The complainant prior to filing of this complaint had issued legal notice through his counsel to both O.Ps. This fact is stated in the affidavit and considering the entire facts, it is proved that inspite of the demands made the amount remained unpaid and the said act of the O.Ps. amounts to deficiency in service.

 

10) 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.

11) Accordingly, following order.

ORDER

          The complaint is partly allowed.

          The O.P’s. Souhard represented by the Chairman and secretary shown in the cause title jointly and severally are hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- to the  complainant in respect of F.D.R. No. 10901 with interest at the rate of 9.5% P.A. from 26/09/2005 for 91 days, thereafter interest at the rate of 8%P.A. till realization of the entire amount.

Further, the O.P’s. Souhard represented by the Chairman and secretary shown in the cause title jointly and severally are hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.12,123/- standing in S.B. A/c. bearing No.4422 to the complainant with interest at the rate of 4%P.A. from 06/05/2014 till realization of entire amount.    

So also, the O.P’s. Souhard represented by the Chairman and secretary shown in the cause title jointly and severally are hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- to the complainant towards costs of the proceedings.

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

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

(Order dictated, corrected & then pronounced in the Open Forum on this 8th day of September 2014).

 

Member               Member                                     President.

gm*