Karnataka

Belgaum

CC/677/2014

Pushpa N Maradi - Complainant(s)

Versus

The President of Mahantesh Co-Op Cr Scty Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

M.V.Vardhamane.

10 Feb 2016

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 of the matured F.D.Rs.

          2) After service of notice O.P.No.1 and O.P.No.2 appeared through advocate and filed their written version etc.,

          3) In support of the claim in the complaint, complainant has filed her affidavit and original F.D.Rs., and death certificate of husband of complainant 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 contents of the complaint and affidavit filed by the complainant. The complainant has stated in her complaint as well as affidavit that, complainant late husband Sri.Ningappa Satyappa Maradi had invested the amount in the opponents society in the form of fixed deposit under Mahantesh Cash Certificate deposit during his life time. The fixed deposit made by the husband of the complainant is as under;

Sl. No.	F.D.R. and A/c. No.	Date of F.D.	F.D. Amount	Date of maturity	Maturity Amount
1	793, MC-766	8/6/2004	12,500/-	8/6/2011	25,000/-
2	801, MC-775	19/9/2004	23,000/-	19/3/2011	46,000/-
3	803, MC-776	19/9/2004	30,000/-	19/3/2011	60,000/-
4	804, MC-777	19/9/2004	30,000/-	19/3/2011	60,000/-

 

          The said F.D.R. amount deposited by husband of the complainant, amount is matured long back. The complainant husband already expired on 19/11/2008 and as such complainant is entitled to get the said F.D.R. amount. The complainant had requested to opponent to return the F.D. amount and along with accrued interest in her favour. The complainant alleged that the opponent No.1 and 2 have signed on the deposit receipts and now they are evading the payment of the amounts. But opponents postponing the same by assigning one or other reasons. Inspite of repeated request of complainant, opponents have failed to return the said F.D.R. amount. Hence the complainant has filed this complaint against opponents praying directing to pay Rs.1,91,000/- with interest.

8) On perusal contents of the objection filed by the O.P.No.1 denied that the O.P.No.1 and 2 have signed on the deposit receipt and now are evading the payment of the amounts on one or other count are all false and same are denied. The O.P.No.1 has further contends that he has not signed on the deposit receipt and he was not in the post of the President or Director of the opponents society at that time. The opponent No.1 contends that the transaction has not taken place during the period of this opponent No.1. Therefore, the opponent No.1 is not at all liable to the said transaction and this Opponent No.1 has resigned to the said post on 5/10/2013 and all other directors have also resigned to their respective post. Therefore the Deputy Registrar of Co-Operative Society Belagavi has made enquiry and found that there is no majority in the management Committee and passed an order on 19/5/2015 and appointed and administrative officer. Therefore the opponent No.1 prays to dismiss the complaint against him as the same is not maintainable.

9) On perusal contents of the objection filed by the O.P.No.2. O.P.2 has admitted that the husband of the complainant had invested amounts in the Mahantesh Cash Certificate, but the said deposits have matured, the interest claims to be ceased unless they are renewed and put up for the discharge. The complainant shall be put to strict proof. The Opponent No.2 further contends that after the death of husband of complainant had never putup the claims as alleged from the death and if considered from date of death on 19/11/2008 petition is time barred. On the point of limitations, this petition deserves to be dismissed with heavy cost. The Opponent No.2 contends that the Hon’ble IV^th Additional Civil Judge J.M.F.C. Belgaum in O.S. No.652/2009 on 6/11/2013 had given the entire F.D.R. in the name of the complainant is also not within the knowledge of this opponent. The opponent No.2 contends that the complainant has not approached the society for the refund of the amount.

10) We have perused the documents produced by the complainant and also we have gone through the facts of the complaint and objection, on the perusal of the document produced by the complainant that is the compromise Decree which is disposed off on 6/11/2013 by the Hon’ble IVth Additional Civil Judge and J.M.F.C. Belgaum in original suit No.652/2009. Where in at page No.4 and 5 of the Decree we notice that the F.D.R. produced by the complainant are been mentioned in the decree along with this name of the society wherein the complainant husband deposited the amount. The same F.D.R. are been produced before this Forum. The complainant has also produced the death certificate of her husband. Coming to the contention of the opponent No.1 that he was not the President at the time of depositing the amount in the F.D.R. and that he has resigned on 5/10/2013 and that the D.R.C.S. Belagavi after enquiry pass the order on 19/5/2015 appointing administrative officer, to substantiate this contends of the opponent No.1. The opponent No.1 has produced the noterised copy of D.R.C.S. on 19/5/2015 wherein we can noticed that at serial No.4 at page No.2 in the column the name of the opponent No.1 is appearing and the names appearing the said column the written is in Kannada as “gÁf£ÁªÉÄ ¸À°è¹zÀݪÀgÀ ºÉ¸ÀgÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ ºÀÄzÉÝ”. So from this order we can noticed that the opponent No.1 has resigned from his post as president on 5/10/2013 and the same has been ordered. By this we can make out that during the period of deposit that is in the year 2004 the opponent No.1 was not the president of the opponent society nor on the perusal of the F.D. receipts we notice that there appears any signature of the opponent No.1 on F.D. receipts. The signatures appearing on the F.D. receipts under president head are different from one signature of opponent No.1 on the Vakalat filed by counsel for opponent No.1. Therefore we are of the opinion that during the time of deposit the opponent No.1 was not the president of the opponent society. Hence the contends of opponent No.1 that he has resigned from the post of the President way back in the year 2013 and he was not President during the time of deposits has to be accepted and believed.

11)    Coming to the contents of the denial of opponent No.2 that the complaint is time barred and not maintainable, herein the present case though the F.D.R. are matured in the year 2011, the complainant before the forum has produced the compromise decree which was institutated in the year 2009 and the F.D.Rs. matured in the year 2011during this period by this compromise decree we can notice that the suit was pending before the Hon’ble Forum and the same was decided in the year 2013. Considering the pendency of the suit and also the date of disposal the complaint one filed is within the time and the date of complaint is on 7/10/2014 and as the suit was pending the cause of action continues. Therefore we are of the opinion that the complaint one filed by the complainant is within time and is maintainable.

12) We are of the opinion that the opponent No.1 has he was not the president during the time of deposit and he has resigned from the post of President in the year 2013, has been proved by the opponent No.1 by documentary evidence. Hence the opponent No.1 is not liable to answer the claim of the complainant and there is no deficiency of service by the opponent No.1 towards the complainant. Therefore we dismissed the complaint against opponent No.1.

13) On perusal contents of the affidavit and documents produced by the complainant and facts clearly established that opponents act amounts to deficiency in service. Complainant has proved their case. 

          14) 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.

          15) Accordingly, following order.

ORDER

          The complaint is partly allowed.

The O.P.No.2 is hereby directed to pay a sum of matured amount as shown in the column No.6 of the below table with future interest from the dates shown in column No.5 at the rate of 8% P.A. respectively till realization of entire amount.

Sl. No.	F.D.R. and A/c. No.	Date of F.D.	F.D. Amount	Date of maturity	Maturity Amount
1	2	3	4	5	6
1	793, MC-766	8/6/2004	12,500/-	8/6/2011	25,000/-
2	801, MC-775	19/9/2004	23,000/-	19/3/2011	46,000/-
3	803, MC-776	19/9/2004	30,000/-	19/3/2011	60,000/-
4	804, MC-777	19/9/2004	30,000/-	19/3/2011	60,000/-

 

Further, The O.P. No.2 is hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- to the complainant towards costs of the proceedings.

The order against opponent president is hereby dismissed.

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

If the order is not complied within stipulated period, O.Ps. are 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: 10^th day of February 2016)

Member                    Member                                President.

gm*