(Order dictated by Smt. Sunita, Member)
:ORDER:
The complaint has filed complaint against Opponent U/s.12 of C. P. Act alleging deficiency in service of non payment of the amount of matured F.D.R.
2) Opponent appeared with counsel and filed his objection and affidavit.
3) In support of the claim of the complainant, complainant has filed his affidavit by way of evidence and original F.D.R. 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 complaint has proved deficiency in service on the part of the opponent and entitle to the reliefs sough?
6) Our finding on the point is partly in affirmative, for the following reasons.
::REASONS::
7) On the perusal contents of the complaint and affidavit filed by the complainant, the complainant has stated that the complainant had deposited the amount in the opponent Souhard Sahakari in the form of fixed deposit. The fixed deposit made by the complainant is as under:
Sl. No. | F.D.R. No. | Date of F.D. | F.D. Amount | Date of maturity | Interest |
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
1 | 12109 | 26/4/2006 | 15,000/- | 30 days and above | 8.5% |
8) The complainant requested to return the matured F.D.R. amount. Inspite of that opponent went on postponing the same by assigning one or other reasons. Hence that amounts to deficiency of service as contemplated under the provision of the C. P. Act,1986. Lastly fed up with the opponents behavior he has issued legal notice through his advocate on 26/8/2014 calling upon the opponents for the immediate release of F.D. R. amount with interest. The said notice was duly served on opponent and the opponent issued false reply to the notice.
9) On perusal of affidavit and objection of opponent, the opponent admitting certain facts and denying certain facts of the complaint. The opponent admits the F.D.R. of Rs. 15,000/- which are deposited by the complainant for the period of 30 days and above at the rate of interest 8.5% on 26/4/2006 which is matured, and denies that, the complainant approached the Souhard Sahakari many times after the maturity of the said F.D.R. The opponent further contends that, the complainant deposited the amount for a particular period of 30 days and above and the above means till the next slab i.e. 91 days only and thereby the complainant is entitled to the agreed rates for a restricted period of 91 days from 26/4/2006 only and the complainant is not entitled to any interest of any amounts from 24/7/2006 onward and said amount shall be considered to be deposited with saving deposit account and shall earn only interest at 4% p.a. and that fact was informed through the publication on the notice board and also through letter to get surrender the matured certificates and further be kind enough to open a saving Deposit account for getting transferred the said F.D.R. and receive the amount on their maturity. But the complainant failed. Hence the complaint is not maintainable in the eye of law.
10) On perusal of F.D.R. produced by the complaint which is matured and F.D.R. is standing in the name of complainant. This fact is admitted by the opponent. The contention of the opponent is that, the complainant deposited the amount for a particular period of 30 days and above and the above means till the next slab i.e. 91 days only and thereby the complainant is entitled to the agreed rates for a restricted period of 91 days from 26/4/2006 only and the complainant is not entitled to any interest on any amount from 24/7/2006 onward and said amount shall be considered to be deposited with saving deposit account and shall earn only interest at 4% p.a. and that fact was informed through the publication on the notice board and also through letter. Even though considering this fact, there is no any document coming forth before this forum in regards to publication of notice by the opponent and in regards to intimation given to the complainant and also there is no any document to show that a particular period of 30 days and above and the above means till the next slab i.e. 91 days only. Hence contention of opponent cannot be believed and accepted.
11) The complainant requested the opponent to return the said F.D.R. amount and inspite of the demands made to the opponent has not paid the amount hence, the claim of the complainant that 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 on the part of the opponent.
12) Taking into 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.
13) Accordingly, following order.
ORDER
The complaint is partly allowed.
The Opponent represented by the secretary is hereby directed and liable to pay to the complainant as order below;
Sl. No. | F.D.R. No. | Date of F.D. | F.D. Amount | Date of maturity | Interest |
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
1 | 12109 | 26/4/2006 | 15,000/- | 30 days and above | 8.5% |
The F.D.R. amount Rs. 15,000/- to the complainant with agreed rate of interest i.e., 8.5% from 26/4/2006 the date of deposit till realization of the entire amount.
The opponent represented by the secretary is hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs. 3,000/- toward costs of the proceedings to the complainant.
The Order shall be complied within 30 days from the date of the order.
If the order is not complied within stipulated period, opponent is hereby directed to pay a 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 this 16th day of May 2016)
Member Member President
gm*
