Karnataka

Belgaum

CC/151/2015

Shakuntala K Mishrakoti - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

V K Shinde

16 Sep 2015

ORDER

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

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 lying in S.B. Account.

          2) The opponent in-spite of service of notice remained absent. Hence place ex-parte.

          3) In support of the claim in the complaint, complainant has filed her affidavit and original Pass-Book is produced by the complainant.

          4) We have heard the argument of the complainant counsel 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) On perusal evidence on record the complainant has produced original Passbook S.B. account bearing No.8282. The complainant was operating her account since 2008. On perusal contents of the complaint and original Passbook a sum of Rs.28,809/- balance his in the S.B. account of the complainant. In-spite of request and demands made by the complainant the opponent society has not return amount standing in the name of the complainant. Thereafter the complainant got issued legal notice to opponent on 7/4/2014. In-spite of request and demands made by the complainant S.B. account remained unpaid by the opponent.

8) On perusal contents of the Passbook and evidence affidavit filed by the complainant. The amount of Rs.28,809/- standing in the name of complainant as on 21/9/2010. Thus evidence established that amount remained unpaid, its amount to deficiency in service.

          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 to the complainant a sum of Rs.28,809/- in respect of S.B. A/c. No. 8272 with interest at the rate of 4% P.A. from 22/9/2010 till realization of the entire amount.

          Further, the O.P. represented by the Liquidator is hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- to the complainant 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.

 (Order dictated, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on: 16^th day of September 2015)

Member                Member                            President.

gm*