Karnataka

Belgaum

CC/65/2015

Aslam A Shikalgar - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

M A Sayyad

27 Apr 2015

ORDER

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

ORDER

          U/s.12 of the C.P. Act, complainant has filed the complaint against the O.P. alleging deficiency in service of non payment of the amount of the matured F.D.Rs.

          2) The O.P. in-spite of service of notice remained absent and placed exparte.

          3) In support of the claim in the complaint, complainant has filed affidavit and original F.D.R. 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) Oral and documentary evidence on record establish that the complainant has kept deposits with the O.P. society as under:

SL.No.	FDR Nos.	Deposit Date	Amount Deposited	Maturity Amount	Date of maturity
1	2	3	4	5	6
1	3363	26/7/2007	30,930	-	26/7/2008
2	12225	30/10/2003	10,000	20,000	30/10/2009
3	12535	31/12/2003	5,500	11,000	31/12/2009
4	14095	16/8/2005	10,500	21,400	16/8/2013

 

These facts alleged in the complaint are stated by the complainant in the affidavit. That statement is supported by the original F.D.Rs.

            8) Grievance of the complainant is that after maturity inspite of the repeated requests the maturity value was not paid and hence there is deficiency in service. 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 complaint is partly allowed.

The O.P. represented by the liquidator is hereby directed to pay matured amount as shown in the column No.5 of the table here in below

SL.No.	FDR Nos.	Deposit Date	Amount Deposited	Maturity Amount	Date of maturity
1	2	3	4	5	6
1	12225	30/10/2003	10,000	20,000	30/10/2009
2	12535	31/12/2003	5,500	11,000	31/12/2009
3	14095	16/8/2005	10,500	21,400	16/8/2013

 

to the complainant in respect of FDRs shown in the above columns with interest at the rate of 8% P.A. from the respective dates therein shown in column No.6 of the table till realization of the entire amount.

          In respect of F.D.R. No. 3363 O.P. represented by the liquidator is hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.30,930/- to the complainant with the agreed interest at the rate 7% P.A. from 26/7/2007 till realization of entire amount.

So also, the O.P. represented by the liquidator is hereby directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards costs of the proceedings.

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

          If the order is not complied within 30 days the O.P. Co-Operative represented by the liquidator is hereby directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.50/- per day till compliance of the order.

        (Order dictated, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on: 27^th day of April 2015).

                    Member                                       President.

gm*