Karnataka

Belgaum

CC/427/2014

Shrutti M Bavache - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Secretary Of The Bhagyoday Co-Op Cr Scty Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

V D Chougala

23 Feb 2015

ORDER

(Order dictated by Smt. S.S.Kadrollimath, President.)

ORDER

          U/s.12 of the C.P. Act, the complainant has filed the complaint against the O.Ps. alleging deficiency in service of non payment of the amount of the F.D.R.

          2) For the O.Ps. 1 & 2 objections are filed by the O.P. denying deficiency in service and contending that the complainant has not approached the O.P. society and has not submitted the original deposit receipts to the O.P. for the repayment deposit amount. 

          3) In support of the claim in the complaint, the complainant has filed affidavit and produced original F.D.R. On the other hand, for O.Ps. no affidavit is filed.

          4) We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the complainant. Since the O.ps. and their counsel remained absent, we have perused the records and proceeded to pass the order.

          5) Now the point for our consideration is that, whether the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. 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 has claimed that under in F.D.R. No.000733 a sum of Rs.20,000/- is kept with the O.P. society for a period of 72 months on 8/5/2004 and the maturity date was 8/5/2010 and the maturity value is Rs.40,000/- as on 8/5/2010. These facts alleged in the complaint are stated by the complainant in the affidavit. That statement is supported by the original F.D.R.

            8) Grievance of the complainant is that, after maturity deposited amount remained unpaid inspite of the demands made. This fact is pleaded in the complaint and stated by the complainant in the affidavit. Thus, the evidence establish that inspite of the demands made, after maturity, the amount remained unpaid. It amounts to deficiency in service.

          9) The O.Ps. Chairman and Secretary have contended that denying deficiency in service and contending that the complainant has not approached the O.P. society and has not submitted the original deposit receipts to the O.P. for the repayment deposit amount.

          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

          Complaint is partly allowed.

          The O.P. represented by the Chairman and Secretary jointly and severally are hereby directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.40,000/- in respect of F.D.R.No.000733 with interest at the rate of 8% P.A. from 8/5/2010 till realization of the entire amount.

          So also, the O.P. Co-Operative represented by the Secretary and Chairman jointly and severally are hereby directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards costs of the proceedings.

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

          If the order is not complied within 30 days the O.P. Co-Operative represented by Chairman and Secretary are hereby directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.50/- per day till compliance of the order.

(Order dictated, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on: 23^rd day of February 2015)

                   Member               Member                                President.

gm*