Kerala

Trissur

CC/07/987

Premachandran M.R - Complainant(s)

Versus

Big Ben Kuries And Loans Pvt Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Adv.P.B.Rajeev

04 Mar 2010

ORDER


CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUMAyyanthole , Thrissur
CONSUMER CASE NO. 07 of 987
1. Premachandran M.R Madambikkattil House,Chiyyram.TrissurKerala ...........Appellant(s)

Vs.
1. Big Ben Kuries And Loans Pvt Ltd House of Trust Building,P.O.Road,Thrissur Rep by Chairman,P.A.George.TrissurKerala ...........Respondent(s)


For the Appellant :Adv.P.B.Rajeev , Advocate for
For the Respondent :

Dated : 04 Mar 2010
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 complainant had deposited Rs.10,000/- with respondent on 27/10/86 as fixed deposit for a period of 15 years. At the time of depositing the above amount, the respondent issued a security receipt dated 27/10/86 promising to repay the amount with 18% interest. At the time of deposit the complainant was the Managing Director of the respondent company and he retired from the firm by withdrawing all his shares. At the time of retirement all the then existing accounts between the complainant and the respondent were settled. At that time he had not withdraw the above fixed amount since the maturity period of the fixed deposit was not terminated. The deposit matured on 27/10/01and the complainant demanded the amount to the respondent. But the respondent did not return the amount to the complainant. The complainant demanded the amount on several occasions, but no use. So he issued a lawyer notice and the respondent sent a reply stating false and untenable contentions to avoid the payment.   Hence this complaint.
 
           2. The averments in the counter are that the complainant was the chairman of respondent company from 1985 to 1993. During that time it was found that the complainant misappropriated the funds of the company and the complainant by admitting all his faults executed a document in favour of the company. The respondent is not responsible for the complainant to release any amount to the complainant on the basis of any forged documents. There is no amount due from the respondent. The complainant is not entitled to get any amount from the respondent. The averments in the reply notice are true. The complainant is not entitled to get any compensation from this respondent. Hence dismiss the complaint.
 
            3. Points for consideration are :
1) Is there any deficiency in service on the part of respondent?
2) If so reliefs and costs?
 
            4. The evidence consists of Exhibits P1 to P3 and Exhibit R1. No oral evidence adduced by both.
 
            5. Exhibit P1 is the deposit receipt produced by the complainant. He filed this complaint to get return of this amount with interest at the rate of 18% per annum. The respondent seriously contested the case by stating that there is no amount due from the respondent. According to the respondent the complainant was the chairman of respondent company during 1985-1993. It is admitted by complainant also. At that time he misappropriated the funds of the company and it was found out and by admitting all the faults he executed a document in favour of the respondent company. They produced Exhibit R1 document. It is a document executed by the complainant Premachandran. It would show that there is admission on the part of complainant of misappropriating the funds of the respondent company. It is also stated in Exhibit R1 that the misappropriated amount concluded as Rs.84,000/- and out of which he had paid Rs.64,000/- in the company. Later the remaining Rs.20,000/- also paid and the entire transactions were settled. The Exhibit R1 document also contains the admission of the complainant to settle the chitty transaction of some of the subscribers. The names of the subscribers are also explained in the document. The document is dated 21st June 1999. Exhibit P1, the fixed deposit receipt is dated 27/10/1986 and the due date stated as 27/10/2001. According to the complainant this amount was not returned because the maturity date was not reached. But this view of the complainant can not be believed. If this amount remains unpaid definitely it will enter in the Exhibit R1 document. The complainant was forced to pay Rs.84,000/- in the respondent company and also forced to settle some chitty transactions. If there was deposited amount like Exhibit P1 it would definitely adjusted towards the amount he had to pay in the company. The complaint is found frivolous and the respondent is entitled for cost of the litigation.
 
               5. In the result the complaint is dismissed with payment of cost Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) to the respondent within a month from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
 

               Dictated to the Confdl. Asst., transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum this the 4th day of March 2010.


HONORABLE Rajani P.S., MemberHONORABLE Padmini Sudheesh, PRESIDENTHONORABLE Sasidharan M.S, Member