Karnataka

Belgaum

CC/801/2014

Shubhan N Chavan - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Secertary of Bharati Mahila Cr Sou Saha Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

S.M. Gawade

22 Feb 2016

ORDER

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

:ORDER:

The complainant 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.

          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 perusal contents of the complaint and affidavit filed by the complainant, the complainant has stated that when he was minor his father Shri. Narayan D. Chavan had deposited Rs. 10,250/- under F.D.R. No. 002371 on 12/10/1999 which was matured on 12/10/2014 and the maturity amount is Rs.1,00,000/- under the Scheme Re-investment Plan. The complainant further alleged that, at the time of maturity of said F.D.R. the complainant was major so the complainant along with his father approached to the souhard sahakari many times and 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.

          8)  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. which is deposited by the father of the complainant Shri. Narayan D. Chavan under the scheme Reinvestment plain of Rs. 10,250/- for the period of 15 years at the rate of 15.5%, which was matured on 12/10/2014 and the maturity value is Rs.1,00,000/-. The opponent denies that, the complainant and his father approached the souhard sahakari so many times. The opponent further contends that, at the time of the deposit the complainant was minor and his father had not provide any details regarding the complainant attaining majority and has shown willingness that the complainant and his father approach to the souhard sahakari and discharge the certificate and receive the claim. The opponent further contends that, the complainant is not entitled to any interest from the respective date of maturity on the said deposit because the deposit made by the complainant’s father was under the scheme of Reinvestment Plain and that to considered with saving deposit account and shall earn only 4% p.a. interest and that fact was informed through the publication on the notice board and also through letter. Hence the complaint is not maintainable in the eye of law.

          9)  On perusal of F.D.R. produced by the complaint which was matured in the year 2014 and it was standing in the name of complainant. This fact is admitted by the opponent. The contention of the opponent is that, the father of the complainant had not produced any details regarding the complainant and has shown willingness that the complainant and the opponent contends in his objection at para No.13 stating that the complainant may approach to the souhard sahakari and get discharge the certificate and receive the claim. Hence indirectly the opponent has admitted the claim of the complainant. The another contention of the opponent is that, the complainant is not entitled to any interest from the respective date of maturity of said deposit because the deposit made by the complainant’s father was under the scheme of Reinvestment Plan and that to considered with saving deposit account and shall earn only 4% p.a. interest 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. Hence contention of opponent cannot be believed and accepted.

          10)  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 but 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.

          11) On the perusal of the documents it was the father of the  complainant who had deposited the amount in the name of present complainant who was minor at the time of deposit. But during filing this complaint the complainant has attended majority and has filed the claim against the opponent. One of the contends of the opponent is that the father of the complainant has not discharged the minor guardian and the complainant who is major has directly approached the forum. No doubt the complainant was minor at the time of deposit but at the time of filing the complaint the present complainant has attained majority and hence he is having right to file the complaint but the father of the complainant ought to have approach the Souhard Sahkari and get discharge the minor guardianship.

          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 to pay to the complainant the matured amount of Rs.1,00,000/- in respect of F.D.R. No.002371 with future interest at the rate of 8% p.a. from 13/10/2014 till realization of the entire amount.

         The opponent represented by the secretary is hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs. 2,000/- toward costs of the proceedings to the complainant.

         The complainant and his father is hereby directed to approach to the souhard sahakari and get discharge the minor guardianship within 30 days from the date of the order and the opponent is directed to issue the acknowledgement to the complainant and his father, if the complainant approach the Souhard to get discharge the guardianship.

         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 pronounce in the open Forum on this 22^nd day of February 2016)

Member                          Member                             President

gm*