Karnataka

Belgaum

CC/249/2015

Shivaraj B Mokashi - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Chairman Of Yamakanmardi Urban Co-Op Cr Scty - Opp.Party(s)

M S Patil

02 Feb 2016

ORDER

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

: ORDER :

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

          2) Opponents No.1 and 2 have appeared through their advocate Opponent No.2 has filed his version and Opponent No.1 adopts the version filed by the opponent No.2. Opponents No.1 and 2 have denied contents of the complaint. Hence prays for dismissal the complaint.

          3) In support of the claim of the complainant, complainant has filed his affidavit by way of evidence and opponent No.2 has filed his 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) On perusal contents of the complaint, the complainant has alleged in his complaint that his father had kept of Rs.6,500/- on 19/4/1996 under F.D.R. No.242 date of maturity on 19/4/2015 and maturity amount claimed by the complainant is Rs.1,06,661/-.  The complainant further alleged that after maturity of the said F.D.R. complainant and his father contacted the opponent society to release the F.D. amount in favour of the complainant. Opponents failed to pay the maturity F.D.R. amount. On 10/5/2015 complainant had personally approached opponents and requested to release maturity F.D. amount. The opponents did not heed the request of the complainant. The Opponents have caused the deficiency in service non payment of maturity of F.D.R. amount. The said amount was required for further education of the complainant. Inspite of that the opponents failed to pay the maturity F.D. amount. Hence complainant constrained to file this complaint against opponents.

          8) On perusal contents of objection and evidence affidavit filed by the opponents. The opponents admitted the first para of the complaint and further admitted that father of the complainant had deposited the amount in the society and same F.D.R. has been matured but the complainant or his father have not approached opponent society after maturity and father of the complainant is not filed any withdrawal vouchers to get the F.D. maturity amount and complainant and his father did not approach opponents society for release of maturity F.D. amount. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the opponents. Hence prays for dismissal of the complaint.

9) On perusal evidence affidavit and contents of the original F.D.R. records, it established that the father of the complainant had kept amount of Rs.6,500/- on 19/4/1996 date of maturity was 19/4/2015 and maturity amount claimed by the complainant is Rs.1,06,661/-. On perusal contents of original F.D.R. father of the complainant had kept amount of Rs.6,500/- under scheme of Child Development Cash Certificate under F.D.R. No.242 dated 19/4/1996  to 19/4/2015 for the period of 19 years and said F.D. was matured on 19/4/2015 for Rs.1,06,661/-.

10) In-spite of repeated request and demands made by the complainant and his father the opponents did not pay the maturity F.D. amount in favour of the complainant. On perusal contents of the affidavit, the complainant and his father requested the opponents to pay the maturity F.D. amount, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opponents. These facts alleged in the complaint ascertained by the complainant in the affidavit. Hence deficiency in service is proved. Opponents also admitted the father of the complainant had kept amount of Rs.6,500/- the said F.D. was matured on 19/4/2015. In-spite of that opponents failed to pay the F.D. amount in favour of the complainant. Hence deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. have been proved.

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 Chief Executive officer/Secretary jointly and severally are hereby directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.1,06,661/- in respect of FDR No.242 with future interest at the rate of 8% P.A. from 20/4/2015 till realization of the entire amount.

          The O.Ps. represented by the Chairman and Chief Executive officer/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 2^nd day of February 2016)

                    Member                                    President

gm*