Karnataka

Belgaum

CC/345/2015

Shri.Sandeep Mahadev Kone, - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Liquidator Shree Hanuman Co-Op. Credit Society Ltd., Nippani, - Opp.Party(s)

D S Pachandi And S M Kulkarni

04 Nov 2015

ORDER

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

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 the matured F.D.R.

          2) Despite service of notice, O.P. has remained absent. Hence placed 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.12,500/- on 27/8/2001 under F.D.R. A/c. No.2065 and said amount was matured on 27/01/2006 with agreed  rate of interest 16% P.A. After maturity of the said amount the complainant requested to return the maturity F.D. amount but the opponent postpone the same one or other reasons. Thereafter the complainant approached the opponent society to refund F.D.R. amount with interest. The complainant came to know that opponent society has become insolvent and Liquidator has been appointed to the State Government to settle the affairs of the society. Thereafter, the complainant personally went and requested the Liquidator, the Liquidator did not pay the F.D.R. amount with interest. The said amount was required for the complainant for his livelihood. Hence complainant constrained to file this complaint against opponent society.

7) On perusal documents F.D.R. produced by the complainant he had deposited a sum of Rs.12,500/- on 28/08/2001 said F.D.R. was matured on 27/01/2006 and agreed rate of interest 16% P.A., F.D.R. is standing in the name of the complainant. On perusal evidence affidavit of the complainant, after maturity of F.D.R. the opponent has not paid F.D.R. amount. Hence, the claim of the complainant that inspite of the demands made the amount remained unpaid, has to be believed and accepted. It is well settled legal position that non payment of the amount deposited, amounts to deficiency in 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) Taking into consideration of the facts, evidence on record and the discussion made here before deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. has been proved.

ORDER

          The complaint is partly allowed.

          The O.P. represented by the Liquidator is directed to pay a sum of Rs.12,500/- to the complainant in respect of F.D.R. A/c. No.2065 with interest at the rate of 16% P.A. for the period from 27/8/2001 to 27/01/2006 and with future interest at the rate of 8% P.A. from 28/01/2006 till realization of entire amount.

          Further the O.P. 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 Liquidator 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.

(Order dictated, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on: 4^th day of November 2015)

                  Member                      Member            President.

gm*