Karnataka

Belgaum

CC/447/2014

Madivalappa M Hooli - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Vice Chairman Of Gourishankar Urban Co-Op Scty Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

A.M Makandar.

23 Feb 2015

ORDER

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

ORDER

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

          2) The O.P.No.1 inspite of service of notice remained absent and placed exparte. O.P.2 appeared through advocate and contended in his version and has admitted the deposit of the complainant and states that he was secretary of the society from 1995 to 2010 but resigned on 13/4/2010 and hence he is not concerned to the claim of the complainant. Further he contend that the Chairman and other directors are responsible for the claim of the complainant. Also it is stated that, in certain other cases, against him, he has challenged the order of this Forum before the Hon’ble State Consumer Commission, Bangalore and the said matter has been stayed. 

3) In support of the claim in the complaint, complainant has filed affidavit and certain documents including original F.D.R. are produced. We have heard arguments of the complainant’s counsel and perused the record.

4) Now the point for our consideration is that, whether the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. and that the complainant is entitled to the reliefs sought?

5) Finding on the point is partly in affirmative for the following reasons.

REASONS

6) Oral and documentary evidence on record establish that the complainant kept the amount in fixed deposit with the O.P. society under FDR No. 126 a sum of Rs.10,000/- on 13/6/2001 and the maturity date was 13/6/2011 and the maturity value was Rs.50,000/-.

7) Grievance of the complainant is that after maturity of the deposit inspite of the demands made, the O.Ps. have not paid the amount and hence, there is deficiency in service on their part. Though the O.Ps. have denied the deficiency in service, it is fact that the F.D.R. amount has not been paid to the complainant. It is well settled legal position as held by the Hon’ble Apex Commission and Apex Court that, non payment of the amount of the matured F.D.R. amounts to deficiency in service. Hence, prima-facie, the complainant has proved deficiency in service.

          8) The 2^nd O.P. secretary, admittedly worked as such in the O.P. society from the year 1995 to 2010. He contend that the chairman and other directors of the society are liable and responsible for refund of the amount to the depositors. But, further he contend that on 13/4/2010 he resigned from the post of secretary and thereafter he has not attended to the duties and as such he is not liable for the claim of the complainant. Regarding submission of resignation, no documents are produced. But nothing is on record to prove that the said resignation was accepted by the committee and that he was relieved from the duties and that he handed over the charge that he was holding etc.,. In the absence of the same, only on the contention that he has resigned from the post and as such he is not liable, cannot accepted. One more contention he has taken is that, in some other cases this Forum has passed orders and the same has been challenged by him before the Hon’ble State Commission, in which stay has been granted. Firstly, in that regard no document is produced and secondly, even if any stay has been granted, it pertains to the order in the particular case and the same is nothing to do with the present proceedings. Further more, no order has been passed holding that he is not at all liable and responsible or concerned to the transaction of the society etc.,. Further it is to be noted that, the period mentioned by O.P.2 that he was secretary from 1995 to 2010 April and resigned on 13/10/2010 by informing personal to chairman and to the directors and stated he is not liable but the F.D. deposit made by the complainant is on 13/6/2001 at this period the secretary O.P.2 was very well working in the O.P. society and is having knowledge of the F.D. deposit made by the complainant and upon that it is to be noted, the said O.P.2 has signed on the said F.D. receipt and the said signature compared with the signature on the vakalath are similar. Hence, the contention of O.P.2 that he is not liable to answer the claim of the complainant cannot be accepted.

          9) Hence, considering the oral and documentary evidence on record and the discussion made here before and the conclusion arrived at, the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. accordingly, following order.

ORDER

          The complaint is partly allowed.

          The O.P. society represented by the Vice Chairman and Secretary jointly and severally are hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant in respect of F.D.R. No.126 with interest at the rate of 8% P.A. from 13/6/2011 till realization of the entire amount.

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

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

If the order is not complied within stipulated period, O.P. represented by the Vice Chairman and Secretary jointly and severely 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: 23^rd day of February 2015).

Member                    Member                    President.

gm*