Karnataka

Belgaum

CC/490/2014

Ramesh B Wader - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Chairman.Shree Aashraya Sou Cr Society Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

S.M.Kadolkar

08 Dec 2014

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 kept in pre matured F.D.R. and also the amount lying in S.B. Account.

          2) 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. is produced along with original passbook. 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) The grievance of the complainant is that, inspite of the demands made the amount remained unpaid by the OPs. As per the original certificate A/c. No.95/32 the complainant has invested  Rs.1,50,000/- on 07/01/2011 and the maturity value is Rs.3,00,000/- as on 07/01/2017. This fact is stated in the affidavit by the Complainant. Considering the entire facts, it is proved that inspite of the demands made the amount remained unpaid and the said act of the Ops, amounts to deficiency in service.

7) A point that needs to be noted is that, the claim in respect of  F.D.R. is made before the date of maturity. Pre mature demand is not restricted. The law permits pre mature demand of deposits. However, under the circumstances, interest has to be reduced. The agreed amount mentioned in the F.D.Rs. is 1,50,000/- and since pre mature claim is made, we award 9% P.A. interest would meet the ends of justice.

8) Further, So also the amount lying in S.B. A/c. No. 690/45 is also remained unpaid inspite of the demand made. Hence the act of the O.P. amount deficiency in service.

9) 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.

          10) Accordingly, following order.

ORDER

          Complaint is partly allowed.

The O.Ps. represented by the Chairman and Secretary as shown in the cause title jointly and severely are hereby directed to pay to the complainant the amount kept in F.D.R. Rs.1,50,000/- in respect of the  F.D.R. No.95/32 with interest at the rate of 9% P.A. from 07/01/2011 till realization of the entire amount.

Further, The O.Ps. represented by the Chairman and Secretary as shown in the cause title jointly and severely are hereby directed to pay in respect of S.B. Account No. 690/45 a sum of Rs.57,037/- to the complainant with interest at the rate of 4% P.A. from 04/12/2013 till realization of the entire amount

Further, The O.Ps. represented by the Chairman and Secretary as shown in the cause title jointly and severely are hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- 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, Chairman and Secretary as shown in the cause title 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: 8^th day of December 2014).

 

 

                      Member          Member            President.

gm*