Karnataka

Belgaum

CC/395/2014

Ramgouda A Patil. - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Chairman. The Visheweshwar Saha Bank Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

M.A.Sayyad.

23 Mar 2015

ORDER

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

ORDER

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

          2) O.Ps. in the version denied the deficiency in service and have contended that at the time of investing the amount the deceased Ramangonda had wife by name Bebi Ramangonda Patil, and the investor Ramangonda made nomination of his wife Bebi Ramangonda Patil. After the death of Ramangonda Patil Smt. Bebitai Ramangonda patil submitted relevant documents for release of F.D. amount contending that original F.D. receipts are misplaced and traceable. Further he executed indemnity bond and other documents in favour Nipani Co-Operative Bank having satisfied about the fact and confirmation of nomination the bank released by the F.D. amount on 1/8/2001 by crediting the same to the S.B. Account of Bebitai Ramangonda Patil. The S.D. account was in force still 23/5/2006 etc., and O.Ps. prayed to dismiss the complaint and same is false and baseless.

          3) To prove the facts alleged in the complaint the complainant has filed the affidavit and produced original F.D.Rs. and some documents. On the other hand, O.P.2 has filed his affidavit.

          4) We have heard the arguments of both learned counsel for the complainant and the O.Ps. and have 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.Ps. 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) The oral and the documentary evidence establish that the complainant has kept the deposits with the O.P. society under F.D.R. No.17461, 17462 and 17791 on 8/2/2000, 8/2/2000 and 18/3/2000 of Rs.47,000/-, 48,000/- and Rs.49,000/- and for a period 13 months, at the rate of 15% P.A. respectively. These facts pleaded in the complaint are stated by the complainant in the affidavit and that statement corroborated by the original F.D.Rs.

          8) O.Ps. in the version denied the deficiency in service and have contended that at the time of investing the amount the deceased Ramangonda had wife by name Bebi Ramangonda Patil, and the investor Ramangonda made nomination of his wife Bebi Ramangonda Patil. After the death of Ramangonda Patil Smt. Bebitai Ramangonda patil submitted relevant documents for release of F.D. amount contending that original F.D. receipts are misplaced and not traceable. Further she executed indemnity bond and other documents in favour Nipani Co-Operative Bank, having satisfied about the fact and confirmation of nomination the bank released by the F.D. amount on 1/8/2001 by crediting the same to the S.B. Account of Bebitai Ramangonda Patil. The S.D. account was in force still 23/5/2006 etc., and O.Ps. prayed to dismiss the complaint and same is false and baseless.

          9) The O.Ps. have produced the extract of the ledger wherein at the time of argument submitted that and they have also contended in their affidavit that one Smt. Bebitai Ramangonda Patil has received the F.D. amount stating that she is the wife of late Ramangonda Patil in who’s name the F.Ds. were standing. At the same time the complainant who is the Legal heir of the deceased Ramangonda Patil argued that the said nominee Bebitai is not known to me and the complainant has produced legal heir certificate wherein his name is appearing. The O.Ps. contention to be believed that the nominee has claimed the amount and the O.Ps. have disburse the amount to the nominee, but the O.Ps. have not produced a single piece of document or any identification proof of the said nominee that is Bebitai and as contended that she has executed indemnity bond after the amount was dispersed to her is not coming forth before the forum. Moreover it is pertinent to note that even it is to be believed that amount is dispersed, but the complainant is withholding the original F.D.Rs. and the original F.D.Rs. are produced at the time of filing of the complaint and in the said F.D.R. receipts there is no column as nominee and on the said receipts there is only a single name of late Ramangonda Patil.  To question to the O.Ps. that why the F.D.Rs. where not taken back at the time of dispersing the said amount to the nominee as mentioned above, to this question the O.Ps. submitted that the nominee at the time of receiving the amount submitted that the F.D. receipt are lost, and as she is nominee to the said account and the amount came to be disperse. This fact though appeared to be true on the documents produced but in the absence of necessary and relevant identification of nominee the dispersing amount to the said nominee cannot be accepted and believed. Hence, the O.Ps. have utterly fail to show that they have paid the amount of F.D.Rs. to the nominee and the complainant is not entitle to the benefit under the said F.D.R.

          10) The complainant on the other hand, as produced the legal heirs application wherein only the name of the complainant is appearing but there is absence of the other L.Rs., Looking into the facts and circumstances the complainant is entitled for the amount of interest that is 15% for 13 months only, and thereafter as per the order;

          11) The complainant at the time of filing the complaint had filed delay condonation application which was to be heard and at the time of argument. The said application is hereby allowed and the delay is condoned.

12) Taking in to consideration of various aspects and the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in (2011) SCCR 268 as well as Hon’ble Apex Commission in a ruling reported in 2013 (2) CPR 574 as well as the purpose and object of the Act, absolutely it is just and necessary to impose heavy cost on daily basis if order remains uncomplied within period fixed for compliance of the order, so as to have feeling and pinch.

          13) Accordingly, following order.

ORDER

          The complaint is partly allowed.

          The O.P. society represented by the Chairman and Manager jointly and severally are hereby directed to pay the complainant a sum of Rs.47,000/-, Rs.48,000/- Rs.49,000/- in respect of F.D.R. No. 17461, 17462 and 17791 with interest at the rate of 15% P.A. from the respective date of deposit to 25/1/2001, 4/2/2001 and 25/3/2001 respectively and further interest at the rate of 4% P.A. from the date of maturity till realization of the entire amount.

          Further, the O.P. society represented by the Chairman and Manager jointly and severally are hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- to the complainant towards costs of the proceedings.

          The above amounts shall be paid within 30 days from the date of the order.

          If the order is not complied within 30 days the O.P. Society represented by Chairman and Manager are hereby directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.50/- per day till compliance of the order.

(Order dictated, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on: 23^rd  March 2015)

                   Member                         Member                      President.

gm*