Karnataka

Belgaum

CC/293/2015

Sarojani D Jarali - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Chairman Of Pragati Cr Sou Saha Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

K R Shaha

25 Feb 2016

ORDER

(Order dictated by Smt. Sunita, Member)

:ORDER:

          The complainant has filed complaint against Opponent U/s.12 of C. P. Act alleging deficiency in service of non payment of the matured F.D.R. amount and the amount lying in S.B. account.

          2) Opponents appeared through counsel and filed their objection.

          3) In support of the claim of the complainant, complainant has filed his affidavit by way of evidence, original F.D.R. and the S.B. account passbook are produced by the complainant and on the other hand opponents have filed their objection but they opponents have not filed the affidavit and same is taken as not filed on 22/1/2016.

          4) We have heard the argument of complainant and perused the records and the opponents arguments are taken as heard.

          5) Now the point for our consideration is that whether the complaint has proved deficiency in service on the part of the opponent and entitle to the reliefs sough?

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

::REASONS::

 

          7) On the perusal contents of the complaint and affidavit filed by the complainant, the complainant has stated that, for the future maintenance and to solve the domestic financial problem in future she had deposited the amount in the opponents Souhard Sahakari in the form fixed deposits under Pragati Cash Certificate and also credited some amount in her S.B. account are as under:

Sl. No.	F.D.R. and A/c. No.	Date of F.D.	F.D. Amount	Date of maturity	Maturity Amount
1	2	3	4	5	6
1)	000601	8/7/2007	25,000/-	9/7/2013	50,000/-
2)	S.B. A/c. No. 2074, as balance on 2/5/2013 Rs.12,858/-

          8) The complainant alleged that after the maturity of said F.D.R., to solve the domestic financial problems she had contacted the opponents Souhard Sahakari many times and requested for release of said matured F.D.R.  amount and the amount lying in her S.B. account with interest.  Inspite of that opponent went on postponing the same by assigning one or other reasons. The complainant further alleged that she had issued a legal demand notice through the advocate on 2/6/2015 to release the matured F.D.R. amount and the amount lying in her S.B. account. But the opponents are did not reply the legal notice and also failed to release the F.D.R. amount and the amount lying in S.B. account as mentioned above within the time.  Hence that amounts to deficiency of service on the part of opponents as contemplated under the provision of the C. P. Act,1986.

          9)  The opponent No. 2, filed his objection and objection filed by opponent No.2 is adopted by the opponent No.1. On perusal of the objection of opponents, the opponents admitting certain facts and denying certain facts of the complaint. The opponent admits the F.D.R. No.000601 which is deposited by the complainant under the Pragati Cash Certificate which is matured on 9/7/2013 and the amount lying in  S.B. account No.2074. The opponents further contends that, the complainant did not approached the Souhard sahakari after the maturity of the said F.D.R. and had not filed any withdrawal vouchers and not return the cash certificate to encash the amount.  The opponents further contends that, the complainant had not issued demand legal notice through her advocate on 2/6/2015 for release of the said F.D.R. amount and the amount lying in S.B. account with interest up to date and that notice is not served on the opponents.  Hence the opponents prays to dismiss the complaint with cost.

          10) After hearing the arguments, affidavit filed by the complainant and on perusal of the original F.D.R and the S.B. account passbook produced by the complainant, the opponents admits the fact that the complainant had deposited Rs. 25,000/- on 8/7/2007 for 84 months under F.D.R No. 000601 which is matured on 9/7/2013 and the maturity value is Rs. 50,000/- and the balance of Rs. 12,858/- as on 2/5/2013 lying in the S.B. account No. 2074 are standing in the name of complainant. The another contention of the opponent is that, they have not received any legal notice from the complainant or her advocate. But on the perusal of the documents produced by the complainant, the complainant has produced the postal acknowledgements before the forum and the signature of the opponents are appearing on that acknowledgements. Therefore the contention of the opponent that legal notice is not served upon the opponent cannot be believed and accepted. Therefore the complainant has proved the liability of the opponents and the opponents are liable to pay the matured F.D.R. amount and the amount lying in the S.B. account with interest to the complainant.

          11) The O.Ps. further contended that in view of the Section 70 of K.C.S. Act the forum has not jurisdiction but long back Hon’ble Apex Court has held that the Forum has jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint u/s. 12 of C.P. Act irrespective of section 70 of K.C.S. Act. Thus, deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. is proved.

          12) The complainant requested the opponents to return the said F.D.R amount and amount lying in S.B. account, inspite of the demands made to the opponents have not paid the amount. Hence, the claim of the complainant that 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 on the part of the opponents.

 

          13)  Taking into consideration of the facts, evidence on record and the discussion made here before deficiency in service on the part of the opponents have been proved.

          14) Taking into 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.

          15)  Accordingly, following order.

 

ORDER

          The complaint is partly allowed.

The Opponents represented by the Chairman and Secretary is hereby directed to pay to the complainant the matured F.D.R. amount of Rs.50,000/- with future interest at the rate of 8% P.A. from the date 10/7/2013 till realization of the entire amount and the amount of Rs. 12,858/- lying in S.B. account No.2074 with future interest at the rate of 4% from 3/5/2013 till realization of the entire amount.

The opponents represented by the Chairman and Secretary is hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs. 2,000/- toward costs of the proceedings to the complainant.

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

         If the order is not complied within stipulated period, opponent is hereby directed to pay a 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 this 25^nd day of February 2016)

Member                                   President

gm*