KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 APPEAL  NO.192/13

JUDGMENT DATED:30.11.2013

 (Against the order in CC.26/11 on the file of CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram, dtd: 31.07.2012)

PRESENT : 

JUSTICE SHRI. P.Q. BARKATHALI                        :  PRESIDENT

SHRI. V.V JOSE                                                                   : MEMBER

Space Centre Employees-

Co-operative Society Ltd. No.T1388,

ISRO PO, Trivandrum-695022,                                                    : APPELLANT

R/by its Secretary.

(By Adv: Sri. P. Krishnankutty Nair)

            Vs.

Blossy Annet,

D/o Antonitta Marshal,

Carmal Bhavan, Attinkuzhi,                                                         : RESPONDENT

Kazhakkoottam.P.O,

Trivandrum-695582.

(By Adv: Sri..S. Rajmohan)

JUDGMENT

JUSTICE SHRI.P.Q. BARKATBH ALI: PRESIDENT

This is an appeal filed by the opposite party in CC.26/11 on the file of CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act challenging the order of the Forum dated, July 31, 2012 directing the appellant/opposite party to release the amount due under Ext.P1 fixed deposit receipts and to pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/- with interest.

2.      The case of the respondent/complainant before the Forum as testified by her as PW1 and as detailed in the complaint in brief is this:-

Complainant is a permanent resident of Kazhakkoottam.  The appellant/opposite party is M/s Space Centre Employees Co-operative Society Ltd, Thiruvananthapuram represented by its Secretary.  Complainant is not a member of the opposite party society.  She was introduced to the society by one Helen Yesudas, former employee of the society.  The complainant deposited Rs.30,000/- on 12.05.2003 as fixed deposit in the society with a maturity value of Rs.60,000/- on May 12, 2010.  Ext.P1 is the copy of the said deposit receipt.   On maturity opposite party has to pay Rs.60,000/-  to  complainant under Ext.P1 deposit.  When the complainant approached the opposite party they submitted that the amount shall be disbursed on production of legal heirship certificate of Helen Yesudas who died subsequent to the acceptance of deposit by the opposite party.  The said Helen Yesudas had no right over the said deposit.  Action of the opposite party is clear deficiency of service on their part.  Complainant claimed Rs.60,000/- being the amount due under the fixed deposit receipt with 18% interest per annum.  Rs.5000/- as compensation and Rs.3000/- as cost.

3.      The appellant/opposite party society represented by its Secretary filed version before the Forum raising the following contentions.  Actually the amount was deposited by deceased Helen Yesudas.  The son of the said Helen Yesudas, Jaxon Tedy staked a claim for the amount.  The computation of interest by the complainant is very huge.  The amount under fixed deposit receipt does not earn interest after the date of maturity unless it is renewed.  Therefore the complaint has to be dismissed.

4.      Complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts.P1 to P4 were marked on the side of the complainants.  Exts.D1 to D4 were marked on the side of the opposite party before the Forum.  On an appreciation of evidence the Forum directed the opposite party to release the amount due under Ext.P1 fixed deposit receipt with interest at 8% per annum from the date of maturity ie 12.05.2010 till realisation.  Forum has also directed the opposite party to pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/-.  The opposite party has come up in appeal challenging the said order of the Forum.

5.      Heard both the counsels.

The following points arise for consideration:-

1.   Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the appellant/opposite party?

2.   Whether the impugned order of the Forum can be sustained?

The case of the complainant is that the complainant deposited Rs.30,000/- with the opposite party society on 12.5.2003 as per deposit receipt Ext.P1 which is repayable after 84 months ie on May 12, 2010 and that the maturity value is Rs.60,000/-.  Ext.P1 copy of the fixed deposit receipt proves the same.  The contention of the opposite party that it was deceased Helen Yesudas who deposited that amount stands not proved.   

6.      It was contended for the opposite party that, Jaxon Tedy the son of Helen Yesudas claimed the amount and produced Ext.D2 copy of letter from Jaxon Tedy.  But there is no evidence to show that the deceased Helen Yesudas had any right over the said amount.  Therefore the Forum is perfectly justified in rejecting the above contention of the opposite party.

7.      The amount due under fixed deposit receipt Ext.P1 had matured.  Not releasing that amount to the complainant amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.  That being so opposite party is bound to release the said amount to the complainants.  The finding of the Forum on this point is confirmed.

8.      The Forum has directed the opposite party to release the matured value under Ext.P1 fixed deposit receipt dated, 12.5.2003 with 8% interest per annum from the date of maturity till realization to the complainant.  Forum has also directed the opposite party to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation to the complainant.  We find no reason to interfere with the said finding of the Forum.

In the result there is no merit in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed with a cost of Rs.5000/-.

JUSTICE P.Q. BARKATHALI:  PRESIDENT

V.V JOSE  : MEMBER

VL.