Karnataka

Belgaum

CC/393/2014

Pankaj G Sawant. - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Chairman of Shree Vinayak Co-Op Cr Scty Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

P.S.Kulkarni.

11 May 2015

ORDER

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

ORDER

          The complainant has filed the complaint u/s. 12 of the C.P. Act, against the O.Ps. alleging deficiency in service of non payment of the amount of the matured F.D.R.

          2) O.P.No.1 appeared Inperson but did not filed version and same is taken as not filed. O.P.No.2 appeared through advocate and has contended that in the complaint his name is not mentioned but due to misguide of the people of the O.P. society who are incharge of the same, this O.P. No.2 blindly appeared in this case even though his name is not appears in the complaint etc.,

3)  In support of the claim of the complaint, complainant has filed his affidavit and certain document including original F.D.R is produced. We have heard arguments of the both the counsel and perused the record.

4) Now the point for our consideration is that whether the complainant has proved any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. and he is entitled to the reliefs sought?

5) Finding on the point is partly in affirmative for the following reasons.

REASONS

6) Oral and documentary evidence on record establish that under FDR No.1836/1229 in the name of the complainant a sum of Rs.10,000/- was kept in fixed deposit with the O.P. society on 20/1/2006 for a period of 75 months and maturity date was 20/4/2012. Maturity value was Rs.20,000/-.

7) Grievance of the complainant is that after maturity inspite of the repeated requests the maturity value was not paid and hence there is deficiency in service. The O.P.2 appeared through advocate and contended that in the complaint his name is not mentioned but due to misguide of the people of the O.P. society who are incharge of the same, this O.P. No.2 blindly appeared in this case even though his name is not appears in the complaint etc., further he contended that notice of this case served when this O.P. appeared in some other Execution petition of the same O.P. society and this O.P. is noway concerned with the claim of the complainant and he is not at all concerned with the alleged F.D.R. claims to be deposited by the complainant in the O.P. society. When this O.P. is noway concerned to the O.P. society then why he appeared in Execution Petition as a Secretary and settled the matters. In the present case the O.P.No.2 was present before the forum and the forum asked him if he wants to appeared can file vakalat or appear Inperson, because he submitted that he is not the Secretary of the society. The O.P. In person voluntarily received the notice before the forum, but the contention taken at page No.2 of the objection that due to misguide of the other office bearers of the society appeared in this case cannot be believed and accepted. Further he has not produced a single document to show that he is not concerned with the O.P. society. These facts alleged in the complaint are stated by the complainant in the affidavit. Hence, deficiency in service is proved.

8) 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.

9) Considering the fact, evidence and discussion made here before, following order.

ORDER

          A.   The complaint is partly allowed.

B. The O.P. society represented by the Chairman and Manager described in the cause title of the complaint jointly and severally are hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- to the complainant, in respect of FDR No. 1836/1229  with interest at the rate of 8% p.a. from 20/4/2012 till realization of the entire amount.

C. Further, O.P. society represented by the Chairman and Manager jointly and severally are hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- to the complainant towards costs of the proceedings.

D.  Order shall be complied within one month from the date of the order.

E.  If the order is not complied within stipulated period, OP society represented by the Chairman and Manager jointly and severally 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 & then pronounced in the Open Forum on this 11^th day of May 2015).

          Member                    Member                    President.

gm*