By. Smt. Bindu. R, President:
The above complaint is filed by Professor Chackochan Vattamattom, Vattamattom House, Mananthavady Post against Bharath Lajhna Multi State Hosing Co-operative Society Limited and another alleging deficiency of service and unfair trade practice.
2. The Complainant states that the representative of the Opposite Parties approached the Complainant during 2017 and canvassed to join the Opposite Party society which is a housing Co-operative Society and offered 16% interest per annum for the Fixed Deposit above 1 Lakh Rupees and offered housing plots in Kerala and Tamilnadu at affordable rates and also offered automatic membership. The Complainant was made to believe that if Rs.1,20,000/- is deposited, the same will be matured after 5 years for an amount of Rs.10,00,000/-. Believing the words of the representatives of the Opposite Parties, the Complainant had deposited an amount of Rs.1,20,000/- on 05.05.2017 and the Complainant states that later he had received a deposit Certificate dated 05.05.2017 vide policy No.FDR-RD-PN No.P10200014. Upon scrutiny the Complainant recognized that it was not a onetime deposit but a six years yearly depositing scheme. The Complainant further states that he could not remit further amount due to economic crisis. Therefore the Complainant approached the Opposite Party and requested to return deposited amount with interest. The Opposite Party issued a cheque for Rs.1,29,600/- to the Complainant. As per the Bond issued by the Opposite Party to the Complainant the interest rate is 10.5% per annum. The Complainant ought to have get 46 months interest ie Rs.48,300/-. But the Opposite Party had given only Rs.9,600/-. When the Complainant enquired about this to the Opposite Party, the Opposite Party told the Complainant that penal interest @ 2.5% is reduced from the principal amount. The Complainant alleges that he had been cheated by the Opposite Party and Legal Notice was issued to the Opposite Party but no reply was received from the 1st Opposite Party and the 2nd Opposite Party sent a reply with untenable contentions in response to the notice. Aggrieved by the action of the Opposite Parties the Complainant approached the Commission seeking for getting a relief of return of the full amount deposited by the Complainant along with other reliefs.
3. Upon notice from the Commission, the Opposite Parties filed a joint version, in which the Opposite Parties contented that they have not approached or canvassed or offered either the land or an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- to the Complainant, if an amount of Rs.1,20,000/- is deposited. The Opposite Party also denied that the statement of the Complainant that he had come to know the condition that the scheme is not a onetime deposit scheme and that this is a 6 years scheme is also false. The Complainant had approached the Opposite Parties and enquired about the schemes and subscribed to the above said scheme and had read and understood the terms and conditions of the Opposite Party. The Complainant is entitled to get the full benefit of the scheme if and only if he is depositing the amount as per scheme without default. The Opposite Party had returned the amount and interest to the Complainant on humanitarian consideration even though it was prematurely closed. The Opposite Parties states that the terms and policies of the scheme of deposit is being decided by the Co-operative Act and Rules and hence the Opposite Party cannot change any of its conditions and hence prays for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
4. Evidence in this case consists of oral evidence of PW1 and PW2 and Ext.A1 to A6 from the side of the Complainant and oral evidence of OPW1 and Exts.B1 to B4 from the side of the Opposite Parties.
5. The following are the important aspects to be analysed to derive in to a factual conclusion for deciding the complaint on merit.
- Whether the Complainant has sustained any deficiency of service or unfair trade practice from the side of the Opposite Parties?
- If so, the compensation and other reliefs to be given to the Complainant?
- Cost of proceedings if any?
6. Complainant had produced Ext.A1 which is a photocopy of a receipt of deposit, Ext.A2 is copy of a cheque for Rs.1,29,600/- (subsequently original document produced and marked). Ext.A3 is a Lawyer Notice dated 21.04.2021. Ext.A4 is a Reply notice dated 07.05.2021. Ext.A5 is the Postal Receipt and Ext.A6 is an Acknowledgment Card. Ext.B1 is the Cash Receipt No.129550 in the name of the Complainant. Ext.B2 is the Cash Voucher dated 16.03.2021. Ext.B3 is the Request Letter signed by the Complainant dated 08.03.2021 and Ext.B4 is the Premature closing statement.
7. This Commission made a thorough analysis in to the evidences adduced and the records produced by both sides.
8. In this case the Complainant had deposited an amount of Rs.1,20,000/- in to the Opposite Party Bank account on 05.05.2017 and Opposite Party had given a receipt for the same. It can be seen from Ext.A1 document (original is produced as Ext.B1) itself that the amount deposited is an installment of subscription and period shown is 6. The total consideration amount is stated as Rs.7,20,000/-. The date of maturity of such scheme is shown as 05.05.2023 and the maturity amount is Rs.10,00,000/-. The Commission observed that on the very reverse side of the Certificate, the general terms and conditions of deposit are given, the first part of which is about the recurring deposit in which it is made clear that if the installment is not paid in time a penalty @ 2 per Rs.100/- per month will be charged and that the maturity amount will be paid one month after the last date of deposit and no premature payment shall be made for irregular account etc. The Complainant himself states that he is a Professor and obviously he ought to have gone through the conditions at the time of receipt of the Certificate. It is observed with great dismay that the statement of the Complainant that he had realized the scheme of deposit as not a onetime payment scheme only after receiving the document and even if it is taken into account the Complainant had delayed to prefer an application for return of amount up to 08.03.2021 which is evidenced by Ext.B3. Moreover it can be seen from the complaint itself that the Complainant could not continue the policy updated due to economic crisis and under the above circumstances the Complainant had miserably failed to establish his case on merit and Point No.1 is found against the Complainant. In these circumstances Point No.2 and 3 do not have any merit and hence not considered.
9. Since the Complainant had not encashed the cheque bearing No.367102 dated 16.03.2021 for Rs.1,29,600/- drawn on Punjab National Bank and issued by the Opposite Party the Commission hereby direct the Opposite Party to issue a fresh cheque in lieu of the above cheque with interest for the amount of Rs.1,29,600/- from 16.03.2021 @ 8% per annum on getting an application along with the cheque issued by the Opposite Party to the Complainant as referred above.
With this direction the complaint is partly allowed.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 10th day of August 2023.
Date of Filing:-29.07.2021.
PRESIDENT :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
APPENDIX.
Witness for the Complainant:-
PW1. Prof. Chackochan. Retired Pensioner.
PW2. Sajimon. K. G. Muthoot.
Witness for the Opposite Parties:-
OPW1. Santhosh. V. D. Manager.
Exhibits for the Complainant:
A1. Copy of Receipt. No.129550.
A2. Cheque. Dt:16.03.2021.
A3. Copy of Lawyer Notice. Dt:21.04.2021.
A4. Reply Notice. Dt:07.05.2021.
A5. Postal Receipt.
A6. Acknowledgment Card.
Exhibits for the Opposite Parties:-
B1. Receipt No.129550.
B2. Cash/Bank Voucher. Dt:16.03.2021.
B3. Copy of Letter. Dt:08.03.2021.
B4. Premature Template.
PRESIDENT :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
/True Copy/
Sd/-
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
CDRC, WAYANAD.
Kv/-
