Karnataka

Belgaum

CC/149/2015

Priti P Diwan - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

V K Shinde

30 Sep 2015

ORDER

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

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 4 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) After service of notice O.P. appeared In person before the forum and has failed to file written version in complaint No.812/2014, 813/2014 and in complaint No.149/2015 and 150/2015. In-spite of service of notice O.P. remained absent. Hence O.P. is placed exparte in complaint No.149/2015, 150/2015.

          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	4	5	6	7
1	812/2014	12699	3/2/2004	10,000	3/7/2010	20,000
2	813/2014	10820	29/11/2002	20,000	29/5/2008	40,000
3	149/2015	3357	01/08/2007	55,000	01/8/2008	59,400
4	150/2015	4333	22/12/2007	50,000	22/12/2008	54,000

          8) The complainant requested the opponent to return the matured amount, inspite of that opponent went on postponing the same by assigning one or other reasons. Thereafter the opponent got issued legal notice through his counsel said notice was duly served on the opponent. Inspite of that the opponent did not return the F.D.Rs. amount to the complainant. Hence opponent committed deficiency in service as contemplated under the provision of the consumer protection act 1986.

9) On perusal evidence affidavit of the complainant, after maturity of F.D.Rs. the opponent has not paid F.D.Rs. amount. inspite of the demands made to the O.P. has not paid the 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.

          10) 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.

          11) 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.	Complaint No.	FDR/FDR. A/c. No.	Date of deposit	Amount deposited	Date of maturity	matured Amount
1	2	3	4	5	6	7
1	812/2014	12699	3/2/2004	10,000	3/7/2010	20,000
2	813/2014	10820	29/11/2002	20,000	29/5/2008	40,000
3	149/2015	3357	01/08/2007	55,000	01/8/2008	59,400
4	150/2015	4333	22/12/2007	50,000	22/12/2008	54,000

The O.P. is hereby directed to pay the F.D.R/s. amount matured to the complainant/s as mentioned in column No.7 with future interest at the rate of 8% P.A. from 4/7/2010, 30/5/2008 and 02/8/2008, 23/12/2008 respectively till realization of the entire F.D.Rs. amount.

          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.812/2014 and the true copy in other clubbed cases.

 (Order dictated, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on: 30^th day of September 2015)

Member                Member                            President.

gm*