Karnataka

Belgaum

CC/203/2015

Mahesh M Magadum - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Official Liquidator, The Raibag Urban Co Op Bank Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

S R Kawali And G S Kawali

24 Sep 2015

ORDER

(Order dictated by Smt. Sunita, 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 F.D.R. amount.

          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 F.D.R. 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 F.D.Rs. bearing No.2472 of Rs.50,000/- which has been kept on 2/8/2001 and has been matured on 01/02/2006. The second F.D.R. bearing No.2473 of amount Rs.50,000/- which has been kept on 2/8/2001 and same has been matured on 01/02/2006. The agreed interest rate is at 16% P.A. and the matured amount being Rs.1,01,290/- respectively.

          8) The complainant requested the opponent to return the matured amount, inspite of that opponent Bank went on postponing the same by assigning one or other reasons. Thereafter the complainant 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. 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 complaint is partly allowed.

          The O.Ps. represented by the Liquidator is hereby directed to pay a sum of matured amount of Rs.1,01,290/- each in respect of F.D.Rs. No. 2472 and 2473 to the complainant with future interest at the rate of 8% P.A. from 2/2/2006 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: 24^th day of September 2015)

Member                Member                    President.

gm*