Karnataka

Belgaum

CC/541/2014

Raju L Nandiwale - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Chairman of Shri BasaveshwarCr Sou Saha Nyt - Opp.Party(s)

S.R.Hiremath

22 Jun 2015

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.P. alleging deficiency in service of non payment of the amount of the matured F.D.R.

          2) The O.P. in-spite of service of notice remained absent. Hence placed exparte.

          3) In support of the claim in the complaint, complainant has filed affidavit and original F.D.R. is produced by the complainant.

          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.P. 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) From the evidence on record it has been proved that in F.D.R. Account No.3376 and F.D.R. No.1240 a sum of Rs.30,000/-  on 29/04/2008 was kept by the complainant in the O.P. society for a period of 6 years and the maturity value as on 30/4/2014 was Rs.60,000/- and the agreed interest rate was 13% P.A.

          8) 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. inspite of notice issued by the forum did not appeared to putforth is defence. Hence O.P. placed exparte. The complainant before approaching this forum has issued legal notice to the O.P. and same has been received by the O.P. The complainant has produced copy of legal notice and acknowledgement and O.P. the fail to reply to the legal notice. These facts alleged in the complaint are stated by the complainant in the affidavit. Hence, deficiency in service is proved.

          9) 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.

          10) Accordingly, following order.

ORDER

          The complaint is partly allowed.

          The O.P. represented by the Chairman and Secretary are hereby directed to pay a sum of matured amount of Rs.60,000/- in respect of F.D.R. No.1240 to the complainant with interest at the rate of 8% P.A. from 30/4/2014 till realization of the entire amount.

          Further, the O.P. represented by the Chairman and Secretary 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.P. is 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: 22^nd day of June 2015)

Member                    Member                                President.

gm*