Karnataka

Belgaum

CC/468/2014

Bhartesh B Patil. - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Chairman. Veer Rani Channamma Urban Co-Op Cr Society Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

S.T.Kuchanure

02 Feb 2015

ORDER

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

ORDER

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

          2) The O.Ps. inspite of the service of the notice, have remained absent and set exparte.

3) In support of the claim in the complaint, complainant has filed affidavit and certain documents including original F.D.R. are produced. We have heard arguments of the complainant’s counsel and perused the record.

4) Now the point for our consideration is that, whether the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. and that the complainant is entitled to the reliefs sought?

5) Finding on the point is partly in affirmative for the following reasons.

REASONS

6) Oral and documentary evidence on record establish that the complainant kept the amount in fixed deposit with the O.P. society under FDR No.475 a sum of Rs.5,000/- on 4/7/2006 for a period of 75 Months and the maturity date was 3/10/2012 and maturity value is Rs.10,000/-.

7) The grievance of the complainant is that, inspite of the demands made the F.D.R. amount remained unpaid by the OPs. This fact is stated in the affidavit by the complainant. Considering the entire facts, it is proved that in spite of the demands made the amount remained unpaid and the said act of the Ops, amounts to deficiency in service. The agreed interest mentioned in the F.D.R. is 13.5% P.A. The O.Ps. inspite of notice issued by this forum they remained ex parte. The complainant contented in the complaint that he had issued notice through counsel demanding F.D.R. amount, but the O.Ps. did not reply to the said notice. Hence the act of the O.P. amounts to deficiency of service.

8) 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.

          9) Accordingly, following order.

ORDER

          Complaint is partly allowed.

The O.P. society represented by the Chairman and Secretary jointly and severely are hereby directed to pay amount of Rs.10,000/- in respect of the F.D.R. bearing No.475 with interest at the rate of 8% P.A. from 3/10/2012 till realization of the entire amount.

The O.P. society represented by the Chairman and Secretary jointly and severely are hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- to the complainant 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.P. society represented by the Chairman and Secretary jointly and severely 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 and then pronounced in the open Forum on: 2^nd day of February 2015).

             Member                Member                      President.

gm*