Kerala

Kannur

CC/128/2007

Antony Kallarakkal,Randamakadavu.P.O., Ayyankunnu Village, Thalassery Taluk - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. Jaison Thomas, DCC Secretary,Kannur dist. - Opp.Party(s)

06 Nov 2008

ORDER


In The Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum
Kannur
consumer case(CC) No. CC/128/2007

Antony Kallarakkal,Randamakadavu.P.O., Ayyankunnu Village, Thalassery Taluk
...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

1. Jaison Thomas, DCC Secretary,Kannur dist.
2Secretary Anappandi S.C.Bank,Anappandi
3.Manooran Appachan P.O.Angadikadavu
4.P.C.Jose Thyadimaram Member,Ward MNo 2
5.Mylakkal Thomas Anapandi S.C.Bank,P.O.Angadikadavu
...........Respondent(s)


BEFORE:
1. GOPALAN.K 2. JESSY.M.D 3. PREETHAKUMARI.K.P

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):




Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

ORDER

6.11.2008 Sri.K.Gopalan, President This is a complaint filed under section 12 of consumer protection Act for an order directing the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.2000/-. The complainant Mr.Antony Kallarakkal is a member of Anapanthy Co-op. Bank. His case in brief is as follows: - Complainant was an account holder having an amount of Rs.2000/-. During the period 1986-88 he received subsidy as a member of sangam meant for cultivation of Mulberry. The member of ward 2 of the present Grama Panchayth Mr.P.C.Jose managed to obtain the signature of Thresiaamma Kallarakkal who was a member 5378 of the Bank and a loan was sanctioned some one. Mr.Jhonson Thomas LLB was the then President of the Bank. Thereafter an Education loan was granted in the name of one Thressiamma, a fake name and committed fraud. Mr.Mathew did not enter an amount of Rs.2168/- remitted to the account in the passbook. Complainant prays for an order directing the opposite parties to pay Rs.2000/- the deposit amount. The opposite parties entered appearance and filed version contending that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The Bank had done anything against complainant that cause financial loss. Complainant has deposited Rs.2000/- in the S.B account 2070 on 10.7.1991. He was issued a passbook and a chequebook of bearing number 9981 to 1990. Using these cheques he has withdrawn Rs.250/- by cheque number 9981 on 15.7.1991, rs.750/- on 25.7.1991 by cheque number 9982 and on 6.8.1991 Rs.500/- by cheque number 9983 and Rs.475/- on 13.8.1991 by cheque number 9984. The entire transaction has been recorded in the savings Account Ledger. The Bank has not done any falsehood in the account. Opposite parties denies all the allegations in respect of the account No.5375 of Thressiama Kallarakkal. The allegations raised in respect of the loan granted to Threesome were totally baseless and co-operative department audited all those transaction. Any sort of mistakes or faults was found by the said audit. Complainant filed this complaint without properly understanding the facts under certain wrong notions. Whether there is any deficiency in ser ice on the part of the opposite parties is the main question to be looked into. PW1 and DW1 adduced oral evidence and Ext. B1 marked on the side of opposite parties. Admittedly the complainant is a member of the opposite party bank. Complainant Antony is having an account in the Bank. Opposite parties admitted that the complainant is having the account in the bank. Though complainant adduced oral evidence he couldn’t succeed to prove his allegations. Complainant did not produce any document to prove his case. He could not even produce the passbook. Complainant alleged that the opposite parties bank has shown certain malpractices in his account. But the allegations were neither specific nor substantiate with convincing evidence. Complainant’s prayer is an order to pay the amount in the account. Opposite parties contended that complainant withdrawn the amount by various cheques. In the cross examination complainant deposed that It means he has no case that he has not withdrawn the amount. He has also deposed “ Complainant could elicit anything from the cross examination of DW1. The complainant was not able to establish the deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties. Ext.B1 savings Account ledger proves that complainant has withdrawn the amount. Hence we are of opinion that the complainant is not entitled for any relief and the complaint is liable to be dismissed. In the result the complaint is dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- President Member Member APPENDIX Exhibits for the complainant Nil Exhibits for the opposite parties B1.Copy of the savings account ledger of the complainant maintained by OP2 Witness examined for the complainant PW1. Complainant Witness examined for the opposite parties DW1.P.K.Thomas /forwarded by order/ Senior Superintendent Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kannur Despatched on Through post/hand




......................GOPALAN.K
......................JESSY.M.D
......................PREETHAKUMARI.K.P