Date of filing : 25-07-07 Date or order :11-05-2009 IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD CC.47/07 Dated this, the11th day of May 2009. PRESENT SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT SMT.P.RAMADEVI : MEMBER SMT.P.P.SHYMALADEVI : MEMBER C.Balan, S/o.Pokkan, R/at Nheru, Kuttikol, Kuttikol Village. } Complainant. (Adv. Manikandan Nambiar, Kasaragod) 1. Kuttikol Self Employees financing Corporation } Opposite parties ® Kuttikol, Po.Kuttikol, Rep.by its Managing Partner Aravindan. 2. A. Aravindan, S/o.Kunhambu Nair, Theethakkara House, Po.Vattamthatta, Via. Muliyar. 3. P. Jayachandran, S/o. Kunhiraman Nair, ‘Jalabhani’ Kalakkara, Po.Kuttikol. (Adv. P. Raghavan, Kasaragod) O R D E R SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ, PRESIDENT In short the case of the complainant is that he through daily deposit scheme deposited a sum of Rs.30,600/- in the Ist opposite party firm run by the 2nd and 3rd opposite parties as Managing Partner and partner. The period of deposit was started from 11-10-2000. The date of maturity of the deposit was 5 years after opening the account. The rate of interest was 14%. But on maturity of the deposit the opposite party did not pay the amount. Hence the complaint claiming Rs.47,188/- with future interest and costs calculating the interest @ 14% from the last date of payment i.e. 11-9-2003. 2. According to opposite parties the claim of the complainant is a time barred one. They were receiving deposits from the public and were lending to those who wants. Due to some inconvenience the firm was closed on December 2003 clearing all the liabilities to the public. The complainant never opened any account with opposite parties. He is a social worker and is an agent of Deshabhimani daily. One kunhikrishnan who was running a stationery shop at Kuttikole was a subscriber of the opposite parties. He was having financial liability to the complainant. He approached the opposite parties to open a running account to deposit Rs.100/- per day in order to discharge the liability of complainant. The account was opened in the name of complainant. But pass book was kept with Kunhikrishnan. Kunhikrishnan requested opposite parties to pay money to the complainant whenever the complainant approaches the opposite parties. As such the opposite parties were giving money to the complainant by withdrawing from the said account. But the said withdrawal were not entered in the pass book kept in the shop of Kunhikrishnan. However, the said withdrawals were entered in the account book and ledger kept in the office of the opposite parties. The complainant had withdrawn full amount and the account was closed. After closure of opposite party No.1 firm the complainant obtained pass book from Kunhikrishnan and filed this false complaint. The deposit was not a fixed deposit it was a running account and the customer could have withdrawn the amount at any time. No interest was offered for the said amount if the amounts were withdrawn within one year. The said account was closed on 13-09-2003 since the entire amount was withdrawn by the complainant. In December 2003 the firm was closed. 3. The complainant has produced documents Exts. A1 to A6. For opposite parties DW1 to DW3 were examined as Exts B1 & B2 were marked. Both sides were heard and the documents perused. 4. The contention that the claim is barred by limitation is not acceptable since in case of deposits the limitation runs from the date of maturity of deposit if such a date is fixed. Otherwise it starts from the date of demand. The Ext.A1 pass book did not show any date of maturity. Hence the limitation starts from the date of demand of refund of the deposited amount. Ext.A3 is the copy of the lawyer notice issued to opposite parties at the instance of the complainant demanding repayment of the deposit. Ext.A4 series are the postal receipts and Ext.A5 is the postal acknowledgement card signed by opposite party No.3. Ext.A6 is the unclaimed registered notice issued to opposite party No.2. Ext.A3 lawyer notice is dated 30-01-2007. Hence in this case the limitation starts from 30-01-07. The complaint is filed on 25-07-07. Hence the complaint is well within the time limit fixed for filing a consumer complaint i.e. 2 years. The Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in the case of V.P. Davis V. Karuna Trust Repts. By Managing Partner & Ors reported in 2001(2)CPR 261 has held that cause of action in the case of deposits made in a financial institution could accrue only from the date of demand. 5. The opposite parties further contended that the complainant was receiving money from opposite party No.1 firm and the payment were noted in Exts B1 & B2. But Ext.A3 pass book shows that there is a progressive increase in the amount from the date of opening till the last date of payment. If the complainant was withdrawing the amount as contended by opposite parties then ofcourse the same should have been noted by the daily collection agent in the pass book. 6. It is a case of DW1 that DW3 the collection agent had occasions to check the Ext.B1 ledger. Had it been so the fact of withdrawal should have find a place in the pass book since it is the case of DW1 that the complainant has never withdrawn the amount in lumpsum. Then it is also stated by DW1 that they are receiving vouchers for the withdrawal of amount. DW1 deposed that on 10-02-2001 the complainant had withdrawn a sum of Rs.5000/ and the same is find a place in the pass book and on 10-02-07 the balance is shown as net and on the same day there was a deposit of Rs.100/-.Thereafter there is no withdrawal is seen as per the entries in the pass book. DW2 Kunhikrishnan deposed that after 3 months from opening the account, the complainant took the Exts A1 & A2 pass books and entrusted subsequently and thereafter till the closure of opposite party firm he had paid the amount in the said account and the complainant has taken the passbook only in 2006. The evidence of DW2 corroborates with the entries in the Exts A1 & A2 pass books. If at all the complainant was withdrawing the amount from opposite party No.1 firm without bringing the Exts A1 & A2 pass books. The DW3 collection agent should not have omitted to note the withdrawal while he receiving the daily collection. But the entries in Exts A1 & A2 shows that there is no withdrawal of amount after 10-02-2001. 7. The Exts B1 & B2 contains a number of Omissions corresponding to the entries made in Exts A1 & A2 pass books. The opposite parties have no case that there is any fabrication, or correction with respect to the entries in Exts A1 & A2 pass books. Therefore the entries in Exts A1 & A2 books are reliable and acceptable evidence with respect to the deposits and the withdrawal. 8. As per the entries in Exts A1 and A2 pass books a sum of Rs.30200/- is in deposit of the complainant. The non responsible attitude of the opposite parties to Ext.A3 lawyer notice dated 30-01-07 also turn against the contention of opposite parties. According to DW1 the opposite party No.3 did not send reply to Ext.A3 lawyer notice since they have documents to show that the complainant had already withdrawn the amount. But no such documents were produced. Exts B1 & B2 that is only an account book prepared, maintained and managed by the opposite parties themselves. The entries in those documents regarding the withdrawals of amounts also casts serious doubts as none of the entries are in chronological order. There is no entry the date of 2-4-2001 on that date complainant had withdrawned of Rs.5000/-. The same is noted on 8-6-2001. If Ext.B2 was on an account book kept and maintained in the regular and usual course of business the withdrawal of Rs.5000/- should have been find a place on 2-4-2001 itself. For the above reasons we are of the opinion that the opposite parties failed to prove the discharge and hence they are liable to pay the amount Rs.30,200/- that is in their deposit with interest. According to opposite parties they are paying interest only if the amount is in deposit for one year. Therefore the complaint is allowed and the opposite parties are jointly and severally directed to refund Rs. 30,200/- with interest @ 9% per annum from 30-09-2004 to till payment. Opposite parties are further directed to pay Rs.2000/- towards the cost of these proceedings. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT Exts. A1. Pass Book A2.Pass Book A3.30-1-07 copy of lawyer notice. A4. Series Postal receipts. A5. Postal acknowledgement card A6.Returned registered letter. B1.Photocopy of account book B2.Photocopy of account book DW1. K. Aravindakashan DW2. Kunhikannan. DW3. Biju.K. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- MEMB ER MEMBER PRESIDENT Pj/ Forwarded by Order SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
......................K.T.Sidhiq
......................P.P.Shymaladevi
......................P.Ramadevi | | 
