CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM.
Present
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President
Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member
CC No.156/10
Friday, the 31st day of December, 2010
Petitioner : K.A. Chacko,
Koorappallil House,
Vazhoor PO, Nedumavu,
Kottayam.
(Ptnr in Person)
Vs.
Opposite parties : Chairman,
Priyadarsini Co-Operative Spinning Mill,
Meenadom PO, Kottayam.
(Adv.James Mathen K)
O R D E R
Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member.
The case of the complainant filed on 23-6- 2010 is as follows. He had taken a share of Rs. 35,000/- from the opposite party for arranging job to his son. But unfortunately his son had not continued the job after 6 months due to physical problems (allergy). Thereafter he contacted the opposite party on 8/2/2006 and 21/5/2008 to get back the share amount. But the opposite party had not taken any steps for refund of the share amount or given any reply to the complainant. According to the petitioner he is entitled for the share amount with all benefits along with interest. There was clear deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. The opposite party was liable to compensate the complainant. Hence this complaint.
The notices were served with the opposite party. They appeared and filed their version contending as follows: The case was not maintainable either in law or on facts. The forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint between a member and a Co-Operative Society under section 69 of the Kerala Co-Operative Societies Act 1969. The complainant is a member of the opposite party holding 35 shares of Rs.1000/- each. The subscription to the membership of the opposite party was a voluntary act of the complainant. It was true that the complainant’s son joined the opposite party as an employee. The reason stated by the petitioner in this petition for his discontinuation, as an employee, is false. He left the employment of the opposite party on his own will. As per the clause 6 of the bye law of the opposite party there was a ban in either withdrawal or resignation from the membership of the society. No member shall be permitted to resign his membership or withdraw any shares held by him until loans if any taken by the society from the Govt., National financing institutions or other financial institutions for meeting the capital expenditure are fully repaid and the share capital contributed by the Govt. and Co-Operative institutions are retired. The capital contribution of the Govt. of Kerala has not been retired and the loans outstanding to the NCDC and the District Co-Operative Bank has not been repaid by the opposite party. As a result the opposite party society is unable to allow any shareholders including the complainant to withdraw the shares or resign from the membership of the opposite party. After complainant’s son left the employment of the opposite party he lost interest in the opposite party society and wanted to withdraw the share amount. When he approached the opposite party, the inability to allow him to withdraw the share was explained to him. The opposite party has not promised to pay any interest on the shares and the complainant is not entitled for any interest on the shares. There was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Hence the complaint may be dismissed with costs.
The complainant produced his affidavit and 3 documents which are marked as Exts. A1 to A3. The opposite party produced their affidavit and 2 documents which are marked as Exts. B1 and B2.
Heard both sides. We have gone through the complaint, version, documents and evidences. The case of the complainant is that the opposite party has not refunded the share value even after repeated demands. According to him he is entitled for the entire share amount along with interest and other benefits. The opposite party has taken a contention that the complainant was not entitled for the share amount. According to the opposite party they are unable to allow the shareholders including the complainant to withdraw the shares or resign from the membership of the opposite party. From the available evidence and documents it can be seen that the complainant had taken 35 shares of the opposite party society of Rs.1000/- each. According to opposite party as per clause ‘6’ of B1 Bye law membership cannot be withdrawn if their is any loans, if any, taken by the society from the government, or financial institution or any co-operative apex body. But the opposite party failed to adduce any evidence to prove their is any such subsisting dues. So, we disagree with the argument placed by learned counsel for the opposite party. The stand taken by the opposite party in non-refund of the share value of the complaint is not sustainable. There was clear deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Hence we are of the opinion that the case of the complainant is to be allowed.
In the result the complaint is allowed as follows: We direct the opposite party to refund the price of the shares ie Rs. 35,000/- with interest @ 10% per annum from the date of filing this complaint ie 23-6-2010 till payment and pay Rs.2500/- as costs of these proceedings. The order shall be complied with within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member Sd/-
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President Sd/-
Appendix
Documents produced by complainant:
1) Ext.A1 is the copy of receipt dtd 30-3-2004
2) Ext.A2 is the copy of share certificate.
3) Ext.A3 is the copy of letter
Documents produced by opposite party
1) Ext.B1 is the copy of Bye-law of the society
2) Ext.B2 is the copy of balance sheet of society
By Order,
