Kerala

Trissur

CC/07/840

K.A.Anto - Complainant(s)

Versus

Arimbur Panchayath Multipurpose Cooperative Society Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

A.D.Benny

24 Mar 2009

ORDER


CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
Ayyanthole , Thrissur
consumer case(CC) No. CC/07/840

K.A.Anto
...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

Arimbur Panchayath Multipurpose Cooperative Society Ltd
...........Respondent(s)


BEFORE:
1. Padmini Sudheesh 2. Rajani P.S. 3. Sasidharan M.S

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):
1. K.A.Anto

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
1. Arimbur Panchayath Multipurpose Cooperative Society Ltd

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
1. A.D.Benny

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):




ORDER

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.

 

By Smt. Padmini Sudheesh, President:
 
            The complaint is filed to get back the amount deposited in the respondent society with interest as promised. The case in brief is as follows. The complainant has deposited Rs.40,000/- in the respondent society vide receipt No.001 dated 1.3.04. It was agreed to return the deposited amount with interest at the rate of 7% on 1.3.05. But the amount has not been returned. A lawyer notice was issued on 13.8.2007. Though it was replied there was no remedy. Hence the complaint.
 
            2. The counter in brief is as follows. The respondent society is registered as per the Kerala Co-operative Act and Rules. As per Section 69 of the said Act the Registrar of Co-operative Society is authorised to settle the dispute between the members and the society. Hence the Forum has no jurisdiction in this case. The complainant has received interest for one years and the deposit has been renewed for three years. Hence dismiss the complaint.
 
 
            3. The points for consideration are:
 
(1)   Is the complainant maintainable?
(2)   Is the complainant liable to get back the amount with interest?
(3)   Reliefs and costs.
 
            4. The complainant has produced two documents and they are marked as Exts. P1 and P2. 
 
            5. Point No.1: The complainant’s case is that she has deposited Rs.40,000/- in the respondent society on 1.3.2004 and a receipt has been issued in this regard. It was promised to repay the amount with interest at the rate of 7% on 1.3.2005. The maintainability has been questioned on the ground that the Registrar of the Co-operative Society is authorised to settle the dispute between the Members and the Co-operative Society. Being a depositor the complainant comes under the purview of the consumer and the issue is a consumer dispute and hence no question of jurisdiction is involved in this case.
 
            6. Point No.2: The complainant has deposited Rs.40,000/- on 1.3.2004 and a receipt has been issued and it is marked as Ext. P1. As per the deposit receipt the amount deposited should be repaid with interest at the rate of 7% on 1.3.2005. If any interest has been received by the complainant it should have been entered on the back side of the receipt. The complainant is entitled to get the deposit amount with 7% interest. There is no evidence to the contrary.
 
            7. In the result, the complaint is allowed and the respondent is directed to return the Ext. P1 amount with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of deposit till realisation with cost Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand only) to the complainant within one month.
 
 
            Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, this the 24th day of March 2009.



......................Padmini Sudheesh
......................Rajani P.S.
......................Sasidharan M.S