KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPEAL No.195/2021
JUDGEMENT DATED: 27.11.2024
(Against the order in C.C.No.677/2009 of the DCDRC, Thrissur)
PRESENT:
HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR | : | PRESIDENT |
SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. | : | JUDICIAL MEMBER |
SRI. K.R. RADHAKRISHNAN | : | MEMBER |
APPELLANT:
| P.K. Snehalatha, Sreeragam Padmalaya Compound, P.O. Cheruthuruthy, Thrissur – 679 531 |
(by Adv. Unnikrishnan V.)
Vs.
RESPONDENTS:
1. | A.S. Sreedevi, Secretary in charge, Cheruthuruthy Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., Cheruthuruthy, Thrissur – 679 531 (By Adv. A.V. Ravi, Adv. Dhananjayan and Adv. Priya Pillai) |
2. | P.K. Chandrika, Sail Colony, Bowenpally, Plot 11, Secundarabad – 540 003 |
3. | K. Venugopal, Kondayil House, P.O. Cheruthuruthy, Thrissur – 679 531 |
JUDGEMENT
HON’BLE JUSTICE B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR : PRESIDENT
The appellant is the additional complainant in C.C.No.677/2009 on the files of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thrissur (for short ‘the District Commission’).
2. The complaint was originally filed by the father of the appellant. However, after the demise of the father, the appellant was impleaded as the additional complainant and the respondents 2and 3 were impleaded as opposite parties 2 and 3 in the complaint.
3. The original complainant deposited a total amount of Rs.1,25,000/-(Rupees One Lakh Twenty Five Thousand only) on various dates as Fixed Deposits in the Service Co-operative Bank, Cheruthuruthy. After the maturity period, the original complainant requested to release the Fixed Deposit amount. However, the 1st opposite party was not prepared to release the Fixed Deposit amount. In the said circumstances, the original complainant alleged deficiency in service on the part of the 1st opposite party.
4. The 1st opposite party filed version contending that the additional complainant, while working as the Secretary of the Service Co-operative Bank, Cheruthuruthy, committed misappropriation, fraud and falsification of accounts and transferred the misappropriated amounts to the accounts of the additional complainant and her relatives, including the original complainant, who is the father of the additional complainant.
5. In this connection, an enquiry was conducted by the bank and in the enquiry, the additional complainant was found guilty of the allegations and accordingly her service in the bank was terminated. Since there was misappropriation of amount, the original complainant was required to pay the amount. However, as per the direction of the original complainant, her daughter Dhanya issued a cheque which was not sufficient to clear off the amount misappropriated by the additional complainant. In the said circumstances, the said cheque was kept in abeyance. It is alleged that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the 1st opposite party in this regard.
6. PW1 was examined and Exhibits P1 to P7 were marked for the complainant. RW1 was examined and Exhibits R1 to R10 were marked for the 1st opposite party.
7. After evaluating the evidence, the District Commission dismissed the complaint, against which this appeal has been filed.
8. Heard. Perused the records.
9. It is not disputed that the original complainant deposited a total amount of Rs.1,25,000/-(Rupees One Lakh Twenty Five Thousand only) in the Service Co-operative Bank, Cheruthuruthy. The said amount was deposited under various Fixed Deposit receipts having different maturity dates. After the period of maturity, the original complainant demanded the amount. However, the amount was not released by the 1st opposite party.
10. The 1st opposite party contended that she did not release the Fixed Deposit amount to the original complainant as the 1st opposite party had a lien over the amount in deposit as the additional complainant had transferred the misappropriated amount to the account of the original complainant also. Exhibit R10 series would show that there was an enquiry against the additional complainant and in the enquiry, the additional complainant was found guilty of the allegations and accordingly her service in the bank was terminated. Exhibit R10 (a) is the enquiry report which is dated 26.06.2009.
11. The complaint was filed on 12.10.2009. However, the complaint was silent about Exhibit R10 (a) report or the allegations against the additional complainant that she misappropriated the amount and the amount misappropriated was transferred to the account of the relatives of the additional complainant, including the original complainant. Having gone through the relevant inputs, we are satisfied that the original complainant did not approach the Commission with clean hands as rightly found by the District Commission. Since the original complainant did not approach the Commission with clean hands, that alone is sufficient to hold that the complainant is not entitled to raise deficiency in service against the 1st opposite party. It is also to be noted that the bank declined to release the Fixed Deposit amount as the bank had lien over the amount in connection with the misappropriation committed by the additional complainant. For the said reason also, we cannot find any deficiency in service against the bank.
12. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the deposit made by the father, who was the original complainant, should not have been withheld for the mischief committed by her daughter, who is the additional complainant and since the deposit made by the original complainant was withheld for no fault of the original complainant, there was deficiency in service on the part of the bank. It appears from the records that the additional complainant committed misappropriation, fraud and falsification of accounts while working in the same bank and transferred the misappropriated amounts to the accounts of the additional complainant and her relatives, including the original complainant. An enquiry was conducted by the bank in this regard. The original complainant requested to release the Fixed Deposit amount during the pendency of the said enquiry. In the said circumstances, the fixed deposit amount was not released when the original complainant demanded the amount. This being the fact, we do not find any deficiency in service on the part of the bank in this regard. Therefore, the argument in this regard cannot be accepted.
13. Having gone through the evidence on record, we are satisfied that the order passed by the District Commission does not call for any interference by this Commission.
In the result, this appeal stands dismissed. In the circumstance of the case, there is no order as to costs in this judgment.
JUSTICE B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR | : | PRESIDENT |
AJITH KUMAR D. | : | JUDICIAL MEMBER |
K.R. RADHAKRISHNAN | : | MEMBER |
SL