DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
SOUTH 24 – PARGANAS,
AMANTRAN BAZAR, BARUIPUR, KOLKATA-700 144
C.C. CASE NO. 41 OF 2018
DATE OF FILING: 04/04/2018 DATE OF PASSING JUDGEMENT: 05/09/2019
Present : President : Ananta Kumar Kapri
Member : Jhunu Prasad
COMPLAINANT : 1. Ramendra Nath Pattanayek, S/O – Late Chakradhar Pattanayek.
2. Ashima Pattanayek, W/O – Ramendra Nath Pattanayek.
Both residing at Village : Ganeshnagar, Narayanpur, P.O. - Namkhana, P.S. - Kakdwip, Dist. - South 24 Parganas.
O.P/O.Ps : 1. The A.R.C.S. (South), New Administrative Building, Alipur, Kolkata – 700 027, Dist. – South 24 Parganas.
2. The Secretary, Namkhana Block Mohila Co-operative Credit Society Limited, Village – Narayanpur, P.O. – Namkhana, P.S. – Kakdwip, Dist. – South 24 Parganas.
_______________________________________________________________
JUDGMENT
Sri Ananta Kumar Kapri, President
Facts leading to the filing of the instant case may be epitomized as follows.
Complainants have 2 accounts maintained with O.P. no. 2 Co-operative Society – one being no. 480 in joint name of both the complainants, having Rs. 80,938/- to their credit and another being no. 105 in exclusive name of complainant no. 2, having a balance credit of Rs. 16,134/-. On 06.04.2017 and 10.04.2017, complainant no. 2 went to the society for the purpose of withdrawing Rs. 5,000/- from account no. 480 in order to defray the cost of her medical expense, but O.P. 2 society did not allow her to withdraw the said sum of money. Complainants had to bear mental agony and physical harassment for such unlawful denial by O.P. no. 2; their prestige was also severely damaged due to unlawful act of O.P. no. 2 society. So, alleging deficiency in service on the part of O.P. no. 2 complainants have prayed for issuing an order directing O.P. no. 2 to release the entire money lying in credit to them in both the accounts and to pay compensation etc to them. Hence, this case.
O.P. no. 1 has not turned up to contest the case in spite of service of notice upon him and therefore the case proceeds ex-parte against him. It is O.P. no. 2 who has filed W/V to contest the case. It is contended inter-alia therein that O.P. no. 2 is the secretary of Mohila Co-operative Credit Society the object of which is inter-alia, to raise share or deposit from the members thereof and to provide loan to them. Complainant no. 2 was the cashier of the society until its venue from the house of the complainant was shifted to its present location. Complainant no. 2 opened 2 accounts bearing nos. 480 and 105. Account no. 480 is in the joint name of complainant no. 2 and her husband, complainant no. 1. Account no. 105 is in exclusive name of complainant no. 2. So far as account no. 105 is concerned, complainant no. 2 withdrew an excess amount of Rs. 21,662/- without permission of the society and the said account is at present running in minus balance. So, question of withdrawal of any money from that account by complainant no. 2 does not at all arise. In connection with account no. 480, it has been submitted in W/V that there was no balance of Rs. 80,958/- as alleged by the complainant in petition of complaint. Complainant no. 2 being cashier of the society unauthorizedly transferred Rs. 1,96,380/- to the account of complainant no. 1 on 26.03.2016 from the fund of the society without taking appropriate permission of the society and thereafter the complainants withdrew Rs. 1,15,442/- from the said account. The fund of the society was thus misappropriated by complainant no. 2.
It is further submitted in W/V that complainant no. 2 never came to the office of the society on 06.04.2017 for withdrawal of any money as alleged by her, because the office of the society was closed that day. She did not also visit to the society on 10.04.2017 for withdrawal of Rs. 5,000/- as alleged by her, because the attendant register shows that she was all along absent in the month of April, 2017. That apart, complainant no. 2 did not handover cashier’s balance of Rs. 10,602.25/- to anyone of the society before proceeding on leave. The society has lodged a general diary before the local PS against complainant no. 2. Complainants have totally suppressed the material facts of defalcation of money belonging to the society. There is no deficiency in service on the part of O.P. no. 2 and the complainants have not come before the forum with clean hands. So, they are not entitled to any relief as prayed for and the instant case should be dismissed in limini with cost.
Upon the averments of the parties, the following points are formulated for consideration.
POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION
- Are the O.Ps guilty of deficiency in service as alleged by the complainants?
- Are the complainants entitled to get relief or reliefs as prayed for?
EVIDENCE OF THE PARTIES
Evidence on affidavit is led by the complainants. No affidavit evidence is adduced by the contesting O.P. except filing of some documents. However, BNA is filed on behalf of O.P. no. 2 i.e. the contesting O.P. and the same is kept in record after consideration.
DECISION WITH REASONS
Point no. 1 & 2 :
Already heard the submissions of Ld. Lawyers appearing for the parties. Perused the materials on record, petition of complaint and W/V. Considered all these.
It is undisputed fact that complainant no. 2 acted as the cashier of O.P. no. 2 society. The copies of attendant register produced on record by O.P. no. 2 also substantiate this fact. It is the allegation of the complainants that O.P. no. 2 did not permit complainant no. 2 to withdraw a sum of Rs. 5,000/- from their accounts i.e. account nos. 480 and 105 admittedly maintained with the society. To counteract this allegation of the complainants, it is submitted by O.P. no. 2 society that the complainant no. 2 being a cashier of the society has made defalcation of Rs. 1,96,380/- on 26.03.2016 and the said amount has been deposited in their joint account no. 480. It is further submitted on behalf of O.P. no. 2 that the another account of the complainants i.e. account no. 105 is running in minus balance and therefore there arises no question of withdrawal of any money by the complainants from those 2 accounts. In evidence adduced by the complainants, there is no satisfactory explanation as to charge of misappropriation of money leveled against complainant no. 2 by O.P. no. 2 except one line denial that she has not paid Rs. 1,96,380/- to her husband as alleged by O.P. no. 2 society. O.P. no. 2 has filed a copy of voucher slip dated 26.03.2016 wherefrom it is available that the slip is signed by complainant no. 1 as payee. On the other hand the complainants have also filed the copy of their saving bank account no. 480 and it is found from entry dated 26.03.2016 that a sum of Rs. 1,96,380/- has been deposited in that account on that date. There is no explanation coming forth from the complainants as to why this money was withdrawn from the fund of the society in favour of complainant no. 1 i.e. the husband of complainant no. 2. More to the point, the complainants have denied the receipt of this money. But, the above mentioned documents go a long way to prove prima facie that complainant no. 2 who was a cashier of the society has transferred the said amount of the society to their joint account no. 480 without taking appropriate permission from the society. Further, perusal of the copy of account no. 480 reveals that the complainants have already withdrawn a sum of Rs. 1,15,442/- from the said account of them. So, taking all these things into account, we feel no manner of hesitation to say that there was nothing in the said account to be withdrawn by the complainants except a portion of the money which has been unlawfully transferred to that account by the cashier i.e. complainant no. 2 herself.
A copy of S/B account no. 105 has also been filed on record by complainant and it is found therefrom that the said account is running in minus balance. So, question of withdrawal of any money from that account also does never come to the surface.
It is the version of the complainant no. 2 that she herself made visit to the office of the society on 06.04.2017 and 10.04.2017 to withdraw Rs. 5,000/- from her account. This version of complainant no. 2 appears to be a brazen lie. The office of the society was closed on 06.04.2017 and it is so reflected from the attendance register of April, 2017 filed on record by O.P. no. 2. It is further gathered from attendance register that complainant no. 2 was all along absent in the month of April, 2017. Further, complainants have not been able to file any document to prove that they submitted withdrawal slip before the office of the society for the purpose of withdrawing a sum of Rs. 5,000/-. Taking all these materials into account, we do say that the allegation of the complainants is nothing but a cock and bull story. They have not been able to substantiate deficiency in service on the part of the society; they have suppressed the material facts before the forum in order to subserve their evil motive and therefore they are not also entitled to get any relief or reliefs as prayed for.
In the result, the case fails.
Hence,
ORDERED
That the complaint case be and the same is dismissed on contest against O.P. no. 2 and dismissed ex-parte against O.P. no. 1, but without any cost.
Register-in-charge is directed to supply a free certified copy of this judgment at once to the parties concerned.
I/We agree Member President
Directed and corrected by me
