Karnataka

Belgaum

CC/614/2014

Vijaylaxmi A Hiremath - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

A.M Makandar.

15 Sep 2015

ORDER

 (Order dictated by Smt. Sunita, 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 F.D.R. amount.

          2) The O.P.No.1 to 7 inspite of service of notice remained absent and placed exparte. O.P.8 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 etc., 

3) In support of the claim in the complaint, complainant has filed affidavit and certain documents including original F.D.R. is 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 F.D.R. bearing No.105 with the O.Ps. society matured a sum of Rs.15,000/- as on 6/12/2000 and maturity value as on 6/12/2010 was Rs.75,000/-.

7) Grievance of the complainant is that 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. amount has not been paid to the complainant. The complainant submits that prior to filing of the complaint the complainant had issued legal notice through his counsel and the same is proved and further submits that the O.P. inspite of receipt of legal notice have not replied to the same. 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 F.D. amounts to deficiency in service. Hence, prima-facie, the complainant has proved deficiency in service.

          8) The O.P.No.8 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, the O.P.No.8 has produced document addressed to Chairman of the O.P. society and also another document styled as U.C.P (Under Certificate of Posting) wherein the names of directors are shown. Both these documents are Xerox copies.  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. The O.P. No.8 produced affidavit before the forum wherein at para No. 9 of the affidavit, the O.P. has deposed that the Hon’ble State Commission in appeal No.336, 337 and 339 of 2012, that on 17/3/2014 the Hon’ble State commission allowed the Appeal holding the secretary has not liable to pay the amount. The O.P.No.8 has produced number of order passed by this forum in complaint No.36, 37, 695, 696, 697 of 2012 wherein the only chairman has been made liable, as the Secretary resigned from secretaryship on 13/10/2010. The O.P.No.8 has filed duly sworn affidavit before the Forum and as contended supra the Hon’ble State Commission has holded him not liable. Hence, considering the affidavit and also that the complainant has failed to prove that as on the date of the filing of the complaint the O.P. No.8 was holding a charge of secretary in the O.P. society.   

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. No.1 to 7 accordingly, following order.

ORDER

          The complaint is partly allowed.

          The O.P. society represented by the Chairman and Directors as mentioned in the cause title jointly and severally are hereby directed to pay matured sum of Rs. 75,000/- in respect of F.D.R. No. 106 to the complainant with future interest at the rate of 8% P.A. from 07/12/2010 till realization of the entire amount.     

So also, The O.P. society represented by the Chairman and Directors as mentioned in the cause title jointly and severally are hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards costs of the proceedings.

The case against Secretary of O.P. society is hereby dismissed.

          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 Chairman and Directors as mentioned in the cause title 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: 15^th day of September 2015).

Member                    Member                    President.

gm*