Karnataka

Belgaum

CC/165/2015

Rajashri A Kadalagi - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Chairman Of The Mayur Multipurpose Sou Saha Nyt - Opp.Party(s)

S G Krishnache

15 Dec 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. Inspite of service of notice O.P.No.2 remained absent. Hence placed ex-parte. Opponents No.1 appeared through advocate and filed version and admits the transaction between the complainant and Opponents and denied the rate of the interest and further contended that after the maturity period, it seized to claim the future interest on the F.D. amount and further contended that the complainant had never approached to opponents for the maturity F.D. amount 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 husband of the complainant was agriculturist by name Sri. Adiveppa Gurusidda Kadalagi. Out of his hard earned money, he had saved some money for his future and welfare of the family. Husband of complainant No.1 and father of complainant No.2 and 3 was expired on 14/10/2014 by leaving behind as his L.R’s. The Opponents approached the husband of complainant No.1 and insisted to keep the deposits and assured to give attractive rate of interest on the deposits. Upon the assurance of the opponents the husband of complainant No.1 deposited an amount of Rs.20,000/- on 23/6/2013 in the form of Fixed Deposit for the period of 5 years 6 months. The said F.D. was matured on 23/12/2014. Pursuant to the deposit made by complainant’s No.1 husband, the opponents have issued a fixed deposit receipt, dated 6/5/2008 for Rs.10,000/- bearing F.D.R. No.60. The F.D. receipt was signed by the Opponents No.1 and 2 and Opponents had agreed to refund the F.D. amount upon the maturity with agreed rate of interest of 14%.  After death of husband of complainant No.1 and father of complainant No.2 and 3 approached several times to the opponents and requested to them return F.D. amount with maturity amount. But opponents avoided the payments of F.D. amount to the complainant No.1. Even after several request made by the opponents never heed to humble request made by complainant No.1 and avoided the payments of F.D. amount.  Thereafter the complainant No.1 got issued legal notice, dated 12/2/2015 calling upon the opponents to release the F.D. amount within 15 days from the receipt of the legal notice through R.P.A.D. The legal notice was duly served on 16/2/2015 to the opponents. After receipt of the legal notice dated 16/2/2015 upon the opponents on 12/2/2015 the opponents have not complied. Hence complainant constrained to file this complaint against opponents.

          8) On perusal contents of objection and evidence affidavit filed by the opponents. The opponents denied the allegations of the complainant and opponents admitted the transaction between the complainant and opponents and denied the rate of the interest and further contended that after maturity period, it seized to claim the future interest on the F.D. amount. Further contended that the complainant had never approached opponents for the maturity amount. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the opponents, the question does not arise to file the complaint by the complainant against the opponents. Hence prays for dismissed the complaint.

9) On perusal evidence affidavit and documents produced by the complainant and F.D.R. A/c. No.60 produced by the complainant her husband had deposited a sum of Rs.20,000/- on 23/6/2009 said F.D.R. was matured on 23/12/2014 and maturity amount was Rs.40,000/-. F.D.R. is standing in the name of husband No.1 and father of complainant No.2 and 3 complainants. On perusal evidence affidavit of the complainant, after maturity of F.D.R. the opponents has not paid F.D.R. amount. Hence, the claim of the complainant that inspite of the 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.

10) Advocate for complainant relied on decision reported 2015 (1) KCCR 193 (DB), Hon’ble Karnataka High Court Circuit Bench Dharwad, parties between; Venkateshwar Power Project Limited and Sugar Factory, Bedakihal Village, Belgaum V/s. The Yamakanmaradi Urban Co-Operative Society Limited, Yamkanmaradi, Belgaum and others.

The above said decision is not helpful to complainant, the complainant has not produce any documents to show that there was agreement regarding penal interest. The complainant is not entitled penal interest. Hence the decision relied by the Advocate for the complainant is not helpful to the case of the complainant.

11) 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.

          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) Hence we proceed to pass the following order;

: ORDER :

          The complaint is partly allowed.

          The O.Ps. represented by the Chairman and Manager jointly and severally are hereby directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.40,000/- in respect of FDR A/c. No.60 with future interest at the rate of 8% P.A. from 24/12/2014 till realization of the entire amount.

          The O.Ps. represented by the Chairman and Manager 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 15^th day of December 2015)

          Member                    Member                    President

gm*