IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA 

Thursday  the 31st    day of  August, 2017

Filed on 07.06.2016 

Present

1. Smt. Elizabeth George (President)

2. Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)

3. Smt. Jasmine D (Member) 

in

CC/No.186/2016

 Between

                Complainants:- Opposite party:- 

1.  Smt. Preenu Zachariah 1. The Managing Director

D/o Zachariah Mathew Muthoot Finance Ltd

Tholottayil Prathyasa Muthoot Chambers, 2nd

Mavelikara.P.O Floor, Opposite Saritha Theatre

Banarjee Road, Kochi-18

       2. Smt. Priya Zachariah

           D/o Zachariah Mathew 2.        The Manager

          Tholottayil Prathyasa Muthoot Finance Ltd

          Mavelikkara.P.O Cherukole Branch

  Cherukole, Mavelikara

    

 

 

O R D E R

SMT. ELIZABETH GEORGE (PRESIDENT)

 

The complainants in CC/186/16 are the daughters of the 1st complainant in CC.No.187/2016.   The dispute raised in these two cases are same, points to be considered are same.  Hence both case tried jointly.  Evidence was taken in CC No 186/2016 as leading case. 

The case of the complainant in CC/ 186/16 are as follows:-

The Father of the complainant is a Non resident Indian, who has been working in Kuwait for long period and a customer of Cherukole Branch of 1st opposite party.  1st and 2nd complainants are sisters.  The complainants father Sri. Zachariah Mathew as well the complainants invested certain amount with the opposite parties bank during the period from 20/10/2008 to 30/8/2012.  All the amount invested by way of cheques drawn in Indian Overseas Bank, Punjab National Bank and Fedral Bank etc . Directly to the opposite parties. The complainants approached the 2nd opposite party to withdraw certain amount during September 2013.  But the opposite parties did not pay back the entire amount to the complainants to the reason that then Branch Manager of Cherukole Branch misappropriated certain amount from the opposite parties. Accordingly they denied payment of Rs.13,90,000/- together with interest to the complainants. The 1st and 2nd opposite party is liable to pay back the entire invested amount with interest as an when the complainants demand so.  But the opposite parties failed to comply with it and the negligence and deficiency of service from the part of opposite parties cause irreparable loss to the complainants.  Hence the complaint is filed.

2.Version of the opposite parties is as follows:-

The allegation that the complainant is a consumer as defined u/s.2 of the act is not correct.   The subject matter of the complaint is pending before the Hon’ble Sub court of Mavelikara .  While on a complaint by the 1st complainant herein an enquiry was conducted where in it was found the misappropriation of money as stated in the said suit.  The said suit is still pending and the defendants therein filed written statement and regarding the same subject matter the above complaint filed.  Since any of the complainants does not have any documentary evidence with them to prove their allegations as mentioned in the said complaint the possibility of indulgence of Mr. George Mathew in the misappropriation with the pure knowledge of his real brother Mr. Zachariah Mathew and these both complainants cannot be obviated.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.

3.  The father of the complainant’s was examined as PW1.  Documents produced were marked as Ext.A1 to Ext.A5.  Opposite party produced the copy of the plaint filed  before Honurable  Sub Court  Mavelikara   which  marked as Ext.B1.

4.  The points for considerations are:-

1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite   party?

     2)  If so the reliefs and costs?

5.  The complainant’s father is the complainant in CC/187/16 filed before this Forum,  The father of the complainant in 186/17 invested an amount of Rs. 15,33,000/- with the opposite parties bank during the period from 20/10/2008 to 30/8/2012.  Complainants approached the 2nd opposite party to withdraw certain amount during September 2013.  The opposite party did not pay back the entire amount.  The opposite parties filed version stating that subject matter of the complaint is pending before the Civil Court wherein a suit was filed by them against their branch manager at Cherukol, who is the real brother of complainant’s father.  They further stated that since none of the complainant does not have any documentary evidence with them to prove their allegation, the possibility of their paternal uncle in the misappropriation with the pure knowledge of his brother and both complainants cannot be obviated. We have perused  the material on the record Ext.A1 is the advocate notice issued by the complainants against  the opposite party. And Ext.A2 is the reply notice by the 1st opposite party.  In Ext.A2 it is clearly admitted by the 1st opposite party that the father of the complainant who is a non residential Indian working in Kuwait has invested amount in the Cherukol branch in his name as well as in the name of his wife,  and daughters and others. It is also stated in the notice that Mrs.Zacharia Mathew has not collected the bond certificate in person from their branch and branch manager being the brother of Zacharia Mathew, he had entrusted all the acts and thing to the branch manager which mrs. Zacharia Mathew should have done personally.  In the said notice it is admitted by the 1st opposite party that Mr. George Mathew the branch manager Cherukol branch cheated the complainants as well as 1st opposite party and misappropriated the money using the bond certificates which the complainant father entrusted to Mr. Geroge Mathew and  it is  revealed an amount of Rs.29,23000/- is misappropriated by him from the account of complainants father.  Ext.A5 is the copy of the plaint in O.S. 14/14 filed by the 1st opposite party before Honourable Sub court Mavelikara.   It is also produced by the opposite party as Ext.B1.  It is alleged in the plaint that Mr. George Mathew the defendant   in the OS No.14/14 w as an employee of the bank.  In the said complaint  the 1st opposite party raised the same allegation against the defendant Mr. George Mathew.  So it is clear  from the records that  the allegation of the complainant that they have deposited an amount of Rs. 13,90,000/-  as scheduled in the plaint with the  opposite party bank and  opposite party  did not return it to the complainant is true.  So far as the cause of action is concerned  the complainants are the investors of fixed deposit with the opposite party bank, so they are ‘consumers’ of the bank  and they can file the consumer complaint before the Forum.  The matter may be pending  before the Sub Court  Mavelikara, but  so far as the matter  before this  Forum is concerned the complainants are competent to file the consumer  complaint as the complaints are consumers of the  bank.   It was obligatory  on the part of opposite party to return the amount invested by the complainant.  In a decision reported in 2013 (2) CPR 571 Hon’ble National Commission opinioned that Bank should be a model custodian of public money, it cannot wash its hands of its responsibility.  From the above discussion we are of opinion that the denial on the part of opposite party in returning the amount deposited by the complainant amounts to defect and deficiency in service and it will surely cause mental agony to the complainant.

In the result complaint allowed.  Opposite parties 1 and 2 are directed to return amount of Rs. 13,90,000/- (Rupees Thirteen lakh ninety thousand only) to the complainant with 8% interest from the date of complaint till realization.  They are  directed to pay Rs. 5000/-(Rupees Five thousand only) towards compensation and Rs. 3000/-(Rupees Three thousand only) towards cost. The order shall be complied within one month from the date of the receipt of this order.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant transcribed by him corrected by me and pronounced in open Forum on this the 31st   day of  August, 2017.

Sd/-Smt. Elizabeth George (President):

Sd/-Sri.Antony Xavier (Member) :

Sd/-Smt. Jasmine.D.  (Member) :

 

Appendix:- 

Evidence of the complainants:-

 

PW1          - Zachaira Mathew

 

Ext.A1 - Advocate Notice

Ext.A2 - Reply Notice

Ext.A3 - Details of e-mail

Ext.A4 - Notice

Ext.A5 - Copy of Plaint

 

Evidence of the opposite party:-

 

Ext.B1 - Copy of Palint.

 

 

 // True Copy //                                

By Order                                                                                                   

 

Senior Superintendent

 

 

Typed by:- br/-  

Compared by:-