Karnataka

Belgaum

CC/822/2014

Kumari Sevanti D/o Kadappa Sankeshar - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Hulloli Urban Credit Souhard Sahakari Niyami Hulloli - Opp.Party(s)

Sri. R.B. Akkatangerhal

24 Sep 2015

ORDER

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

ORDER

          The minor guardian of 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 the matured F.D.R.

          2) Despite service of notice, both O.Ps. have remained ex-parte.

          3) In support of the claim made in the complaint, the complainant has filed her affidavit and produced certain documents. We have heard the arguments and perused the records.

          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 entitled to the reliefs sought?

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

REASONS

          6) On perusal contents of the complaint and affidavit filed by the complainant. The complainant deposited Rs.10,000/- under cash certificate dated 1/3/2007 under F.D.R. A/c. No.196 and maturity date was 1/9/2012 and maturity value is Rs.20,000/-. After maturity of the said amount the O.Ps. requested to return the maturity F.D. amount but the opponents postpone the same one or other reasons. Inspite of repeated request and demands made by the complainant, O.Ps. have failed to pay the F.D.R. amount. Thereafter the complainant got issued legal notice calling upon opponents to pay the maturity F.D. amount. Inspite of service of notice opponents failed to comply the notice.

7) On perusal F.D.R. No.196 which is purchased by the complainant in the name of his daughter Kumari Sevanti Kadappa Sankeshwar for Rs.10,000/- dated 1/9/2007, maturity of Rs.20,000/-  dated 1/9/2012. Inspite of repeated request and demands made, the O.Ps. failed to pay the maturity F.D. in favour of the complainant. Hence, the deficiency in service is proved.

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) Hence we proceed to pass the following order;

ORDER

          The complaint is partly allowed.

          The O.Ps. represented by the Manager  and President jointly are severally are directed to pay a sum of Rs.20,000 to the complainant in respect of F.D.R. No.196 with future interest at the rate of 8% P.A. from 2/9/2012 till realization of entire amount.

          Further the O.Ps. shall pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- to the complainant towards costs of the proceedings.

          Above order shall be complied within 30 days from the date of the order.

If the order is not complied within stipulated period, OP represented by the Manager and President jointly and severally 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: 24^th day of September 2015)

                  Member                      Member            President.

gm*