Karnataka

Belgaum

CC/698/2014

Rahul P Bhatle - Complainant(s)

Versus

The liquidator of Om Ganesh Cr Sou Saha Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

M.A.Sayyad.

02 Mar 2015

ORDER

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

COMMON ORDER

            I. Though the complainants are different, their grievances, allegations and the facts pleaded are same except the details of the deposits by the respective complainants. In all the cases the O.P. society is same, represented by Liquidator. Hence for convenience all the cases are disposed of by the common order.

          II. Since there are 11 cases and same number complainants are there having different addresses and particulars of their deposits being different, for brevity and also for clarity and to avoid confusion, names of the parties of the particular case only will be shown in the cause title and the details of the deposits will be shown separately in the annexure.

          III. The parties will be referred to as complainant/s, and liquidator instead of serial number, as in some cases their numbers are different.

          1) The relevant facts of the cases are that the respective complainants have filed the complaints u/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 against the O.Ps. alleging deficiency in banking service of non refund of the fixed deposits/deposit.

          2) The O.P. appeared in person before the forum and filed version/memo. He contended that on 23/10/2014 he was promoted as ordered to take charge of Sri. Nijalingappa Sakari Samste, Belgaum. Further he submits that he has already filed A.B.N cases to the tune of Rs.40,00,000/- and submitted that to take action against the office bearers of opponent society.

          3) In support of the claim in the complaint, complainant has filed affidavit and original F.D.Rs. 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 O.P. 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) From the evidence on record it has been proved that The complainant/s have deposited the amount in O.P. society in F.D.R/s. in the respective accounts and for the respective some mentioned in the F.D.R/s. The maturity value, the amount deposited and the dates are shown in the annexure/table below;

Sl. No.	Complaint No.	FDR/FDR. A/c. No.	Date of deposit	Amount deposited	Date of maturity	matured Amount
1	2	3	3	4	5	6
1	692/14	1272	2/2/2002	21,900	2/2/2012	1,00,000
2	693/14	20255	28/10/08	50,000	28/10/13	72,500
3	694/14	20253	28/10/08	50,000	28/10/13	72,500
4	695/14	20254	28/10/08	50,000	28/10/13	72,500
5	696/14	20197	28/10/08	50,000	28/10/13	72,500
6	698/14	20768	1/8/2009	10,000	1/8/2013	13,600
7	699/14	20410	6/1/2009	10,000	6/1/2013	13,600
8	700/14	20767	1/8/2009	10,000	1/8/2013	13,600
	700/14	20769	1/8/2009	6,400	1/8/2013	8,704
9	701/14	20255	8/9/2010	25,000	8/9/2012	29,000
	701/14	20257	8/9/2010	25,000	8/9/2012	29,000
10	702/14	20254	8/9/2010	25,000	8/9/2012	29,000
	702/14	20256	8/9/2010	25,000	8/9/2012	29,000
11	703/13	21157	3/9/2010	1,41,042	3/9/2012	1,64,609
	703/13	21158	3/9/2010	1,41,042	3/9/2012	1,64,609
	703/13	21313	3/11/2010	25,000	19/12/2010	25,252

 

          8) Grievance of the complainant/s is that after maturity inspite of the repeated requests the maturity value was not paid and hence there is deficiency in service. The O.P. appeared in person before the forum and filed version/memo. He contended that on 23/10/2014 he was promoted as ordered to take charge of Sri. Nijalingappa Sakari Samste, Belagaum. Further he submits that he has already filed A.B.N cases to the tune of Rs.40,00,000/- and submitted that to take action against the office bearers of opponents society. The O.P. to prove that he is promoted to look after the above mentioned Sri. Nijalingappa Sakari Samste, has not produced a single document and so also that he has preferred A.B.N. cases to recover the said amount mentioned in the objection is also not proved by any cogent evident. Hence, the version of the O.P. at this juncture cannot be believed and accepted. The complainant before filing the present complaint/s has issued legal notice to the O.P. and contended that there is no reply given to the legal notice. These facts alleged in the complaint are stated by the complainant in the affidavit. Hence, deficiency in service is proved.

          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

          The complaints are partly allowed.

          The O.P. represented by the Liquidator is hereby directed to pay to the complainant/s as ordered below;

Sl. No.	Complt. No.	FDR/ FDR. A/c. No.	Date of deposit	Amount deposited	Date of maturity	matured Amount
1	2	3	3	4	5	6
1	692/14	1272	2/2/2002	21,900	2/2/2012	1,00,000
2	693/14	20255	28/10/08	50,000	28/10/13	72,500
3	694/14	20253	28/10/08	50,000	28/10/13	72,500
4	695/14	20254	28/10/08	50,000	28/10/13	72,500
5	696/14	20197	28/10/08	50,000	28/10/13	72,500
6	698/14	20768	1/8/2009	10,000	1/8/2013	13,600
7	699/14	20410	6/1/2009	10,000	6/1/2013	13,600
8	700/14	20767	1/8/2009	10,000	1/8/2013	13,600
	700/14	20769	1/8/2009	6,400	1/8/2013	8,704
9	701/14	20255	8/9/2010	25,000	8/9/2012	29,000
	701/14	20257	8/9/2010	25,000	8/9/2012	29,000
10	702/14	20254	8/9/2010	25,000	8/9/2012	29,000
	702/14	20256	8/9/2010	25,000	8/9/2012	29,000
11	703/13	21157	3/9/2010	1,41,042	3/9/2012	1,64,609
	703/13	21158	3/9/2010	1,41,042	3/9/2012	1,64,609
	703/13	21313	3/11/2010	25,000	19/12/2010	25,252

 

          The O.P. is hereby directed to pay the F.D.R/s. amount matured to the complainant/s as mentioned in column No.6 with interest at the rate of 8% from the dates mentioned at column No.5 as shown in the table above respectively.

          Further, the O.P. represented by the Liquidator is hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- in each complaint, to the complainant/s towards costs of the proceedings.

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

If the order is not complied within stipulated period, O.P. is 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.

The original order shall be kept in complaint No.692/2014 and the true copy in other clubbed cases.

 (Order dictated, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on: 2^nd day of March 2015)

 

 

 

Member                  Member                                  President.

gm*