Karnataka

Belgaum

CC/383/2014

Namrata M Chavarekar - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

V.D. Chougla

23 Mar 2015

ORDER

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

ORDER

          U/s. 12 of the C.P. Act, the minor guardian of 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 contend that the lien is exercised over the said deposit. The exercise of the lien over the said deposit receipt is not deficiency in service and that lien is exercised by virtual right against the member etc., 

          3) To prove the claim, the complainant has filed affidavit and produced original F.D.R and certain other documents. 2^nd O.P. has filed his affidavit.

          4) We have heard the arguments and 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 evidence on record establish that the guardian of the complainant has kept a sum of Rs.9,700/- in fixed deposit under F.D.R. No.001011 and bearing A/c. No.1011 on 2/11/1998 for a period of 15 years the interest rate was 16% P.A. the maturity value as on 2/11/2013 was Rs.1,00,000/-.

          8) Grievance of the complainant is that after maturity inspite of the demands made, the maturity value remained unpaid. Though the O.Ps. deny the deficiency in service, prior to filing of the complaint, demand notice was sent by the complainant the office copy of the notice as well as postal acknowledgements are on records.

          9) O.Ps. further contend that the complainant is a member of Souhard Sahakari and that he being a member of Souhard Sahakari the complaint against the Souhard cannot be maintained and there is no deficiency in service. Further O.P’s contended that the complainant is surety to one Sri.Anant Ganesh Nayak of Pathanpudi for the loan under A/c. No. 477. The loan amount were not cleared and balance stand at Rs.21,880/- for which the complainant jointly and several liable for the claim amount and moreover, the O.Ps. have not produced any documents to show that the said F.D.R. on point of time had ever pledged or given as a security to the above loan account as contended.

          10) O.Ps. in the version denied the deficiency in service and contend that the lien is exercised over the said deposit. The exercise of the lien over the said deposit receipt is not deficiency in service and that lien is exercised by virtual right against the member etc., The said contention that the member cannot maintained the complaint. To show that the member has no right to file claim against the society the O.Ps. have not produced any bylaws or rules and regulations to show that the member cannot maintain the complaint before the forum and moreover the O.Ps. have even not produced a document to show that the complainant is a member to the society.

          11) The O.Ps. contention is that the complainant father stood as a surety one of the loanee as mentioned in the above para but it is pertaining to be noted that nowhere in the objection nor any piece of evidence is brought before the forum to show that the said F.D. receipt claim by the complainant in the present case has been pledged or deposited as a security to any of the loan or specifically for the loanee that is Sri. Anant Ganesh Naik. Hence it is clear that this F.D. standing in the name of minor kept by the complainant is nowhere concerned to the loan taken by the other person that is the borrower as contended by the O.Ps. Therefore the O.Ps. cannot be abstrued from the liability to pay the said F.D. amount to the complainant as prayed. Even it is to be admitted that and after going through the documents it reveals that complainant has stood as a surety to person as mentioned in the above para, but the O.ps. have not produced any evidencery proof to show that what steps are been initiated against the borrowers and also that they have not produced a document to show that how much amount to be recovered and paid by the said borrowers. Contending only that complainant is a surety will not lose any right to claim the amount of F.D. in dispute which pledged in the name of the minor.

12) 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.

          13) Accordingly, following order.

ORDER

          The complaint is partly allowed.

          The O.P. represented by the Chairman and Secretary jointly and severally are hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- in respect of F.D.R. No.001011 and A/c. No.1011 to the minor guardian of the complainant with interest at the rate of 8% P.A. from 2/11/2013 till realization of the entire amount.

          Further, the O.P. Chairman and Secretary 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 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: 23^rd day of March 2015)

Member                         Member                           President.

gm*