Karnataka

Belgaum

CC/464/2014

Yashoda M Bhosale - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Nipani Mahila Co-Op Cr Scty - Opp.Party(s)

S.M. Gawade

23 Feb 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.R.   

2) The O.P. has denied all the allegations in the complaint and contend that the complainant has created receipts and the complaint is bad for non-joinder of parties. The O.P. further in her objection stated that the above F.D. are repayable on demand is absolutely false fraudulent and imaginary and created document and opponent denied the same. Further the O.P. has contended that the complainant is secretary of O.P. society and is looking after the day today affairs of the O.P. society. The O.P. further submitted that the relation between the complainant and O.P. are strained and not cordial due to some deference of opinion, thus the complainant has got created the alleged F.D. in her name behind the back and without knowledge of the O.P.

          3) In support of the claim in the complaint, complainant and O.P. have filed their affidavits and original F.D.R. is produced by the complainant.

          4) We have heard the arguments of the counsel for complainant. When the matter was posted for argument, the O.P. and the counsel remained absent and we have 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) The complainant claims that she had kept a sum of Rs.6,000/- with the O.P. society for a period of 46 days and above under F.D.R. No.7096 on 15/4/2011 @ 8% P.A. interest. These facts pleaded in the complaint are stated by the complainant in the affidavit and that statement is corroborated by the original F.D.R. issued by the O.P. society. On the other hand in the version it is stated that the F.D.R. is created by the complainant in collusion with the secretary of the O.P. Society.

          8) The O.P. though has contend that the F.D.R. is created, not denied or disputed, her signature on the F.D.R. We have compared the signatures on the F.D.R. and other admitted the signature of the O.P. on the vakalat, version, affidavit etc., and found the signature on the F.D.R. is of the O.P. Hence, heavy burden is on the O.P. to prove that the F.D.R. is created. Since the signatures on the F.D.R. is proved. Considering the material on record, the contention of the O.P. regarding the creation of the F.D.R., cannot be believed and accepted.

          9) Also it is relevant to note that, as noted above contention of the O.P. that the secretary of the society has created the F.D.R. by the secretary the act of Secretary is liable and responsible. As considered earlier, F.D.R. is duly signed by the O.P. Chairman and said F.D.R. belong to O.P. society and hence, the O.P. is liable and responsible to pay amount of the said F.D.R. In the case on hand inspite of the demands made, the amount remained unpaid. Hence, deficiency in service is proved.

          10) Another contention of the O.P. is that the complaint is bad for non-joinder of secretary cannot be accepted because the secretary may be proper party but not a necessary party. The O.P. society has represented by the chairman who is incharge of the day to day affairs and conduct of business of the society.

          11) 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.

          12) Accordingly, following order.

ORDER

          The complaint is partly allowed.

          The O.P. Co-Operative represented by the Chairman is hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.6,000/- to the complainant in respect of F.D.R. No.7096 with interest at the rate of 8%P.A. from 15/4/2011 till realization of the entire amount.

          Further, the O.P. Co-Operative represented by the Chairman 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: 23^rd day of February 2015)

Member                Member                            President.

gm*