Karnataka

Belgaum

CC/1/2015

Kalpana C Kokatanur - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Chairman Of Shri Laxmi Mahila Vividha Uddeshagala Saha Sangha Nyt - Opp.Party(s)

S R Kawali And G S Kawali

06 Nov 2015

ORDER

Order dictated by Shri. B.V.Gudli, President)

: ORDER :

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

          2) Notice is issued against opponents, said notices were served on opponents. Opponents have appeared through advocate and filed version contending that complaint is not maintainable in law or on facts and liable to be dismissed and further denied the allegations made by the complainant in her complaint. Hence prays for dismissal the complaint.

          3) In support of the claim of the complainant, complainant has filed her affidavit by way of evidence and so also O.Ps. have filed their 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 opponents and entitled to the reliefs sought?

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

:: REASONS ::

          7) The complainant has filed her affidavit by way of evidence and she has stated that in the year 2000 the office bearers of the opponents society assured to pay better interest and prompt banking service. On the assurance of Opponents society she had deposited Rs.20,000/- amount in the fixed deposit bearing receipt No.AR11/RSR/AOG/28582/2000-01, on 28/11/2000, the said amount has been matured on 29/5/2005. The O.Ps. society assured to give interest at the rate of 16.58%. Duration of the above said scheme was 4 ½ years. So the opponent society is due amount Rs.40,000/- with interest. Thereafter the complainant approached the O.P. society to pay maturity F.D. amount, the opponents one or other reasons postponed the payment. Now total amount due is Rs.40,000/- inspite of repeated request and demands made by the complainant the opponents failed to pay the maturity amount. Hence opponents have committed deficiency in service. Hence complainant constrained to file this complaint against opponents.

          8) On perusal contents of objection and evidence affidavit filed by the opponents. The complainant filed this complaint without mentioning the specific names of the Chairman and Secretary of opponents society who have committed the deficiency of service to her. On this count itself the complaint is not maintainable in the eye of law. Further opponents contended that F.D.R. standing in the name of the complainant, the name of the then Chairman was Sri.Kundan Dhanyakumar Patil and Secretary is was Sri.Shantinath Baburao Gullannavar and it is submitted that the opponents upon whom the notices were served with no way concerned with the alleged transaction of the complainant’s F.D. Further contented that the society in question has been closed long back by the order of the Government and the present proceedings are liable to be closed on this itself.

9) On perusal evidence affidavit and documents produced by the complainant and F.D.R. bearing No. AR11/RSR/ AOG/28582/2000-01 is standing in the name of the complainant and also perusal signature on the said F.D.R. Secretary and Chairman have signed on said F.D.R. The complainant had deposited Rs.20,000/- on 28/11/2000 matured date on 29/5/2005 and at the rate of interest 16.58%.

10) On perusal contents of the affidavit and complaint. The complainant approached the opponents for paying maturity F.D. amount. Inspite of requests and demands made by the complainant the opponents failed to pay the maturity amount. Hence the opponents have committed deficiency in service and they are liable to pay the F.D. matured amount to the complainant.

11)    The opponents have taken contentions that the claim of the F.D.R. amount of the complainant is time barred one and hence complaint is not maintainable. At this stage question of delay filing the complaint does not arise, already said application is allowed after filing the complaint.

12)    Inspite of maturity opponents not paid maturity amount. The complainant had deposited Rs.20,000/- as per F.D.R. under AR11/RSR/AOG/28582/2000-01, on 28/11/2000 and date of maturity was on 29/5/2005 and opponents failed to pay the F.D.R. amount after maturity period. On perusal F.D.R. Secretary and Chairman have signed on the F.D.R. who are liable to pay the maturity amount to the complainant. There is deficiency in service on the part of the opponents. On perusal contents of the affidavit evidence and documents produced by the complainant. Complainant has proved deficiency in service.

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

          14) 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.

          15) Hence we proceed to pass the following order;

: ORDER :

          The complaint is partly allowed.

          The O.Ps. represented by the Chairman and Secretary jointly and severally are hereby directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.40,000/- in respect of FDR No.AR11/RSR/AOG/28582/2000-01 with future interest at the rate of 8% P.A. from 30/5/2005 till realization of the entire amount.

          The O.Ps. represented by the Chairman and Secretary jointly and severally are hereby directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards costs of the proceedings.

          Order shall be complied within one month 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 & then pronounced in the Open Forum on this 6^th day of November 2015)

          Member                    Member                    President

gm*