Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

A/254/2018

The Secretary, Narthangudi Agricultural Cooperative Bank - Complainant(s)

Versus

D. Sivakumar, Son of M. Durairaj, Pommangalam, coimbatore - Opp.Party(s)

M/s. R. Poornima

30 Jan 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI

 

                    BEFORE :       Hon’ble Thiru Justice R. SUBBIAH                             PRESIDENT

                    Thiru R  VENKATESAPERUMAL                      MEMBER

     

COMMON ORDER IN

F.A.NO.254/2018 AND FA.NO.242/2019

(Against order in CC.NO.4/2015 on the file of the DCDRC, Thiruvarur)

 

DATED THIS THE 30^th DAY OF JANUARY 2023

           

 

FA.NO.254/2018

 

The Secretary

Narthangudi Agricultural Cooperative Bank                              M/s. R. Poornima

Narthangudi                                                                            Counsel for

Needamangalam – 614 404                                          Appellant / Opposite party

 

                              Vs.

D. Sivakumar

S/o. M. Durairaj

30, Lakshmi Nagar

Pommanampalayam                                                                  In person

Coimbatore                                                             Respondent / Complainant

 

FA.NO.242/2019

 

D. Sivakumar

S/o. M. Durairaj

30, Lakshmi Nagar                 

Pommanampalayam                                                                    In person

Coimbatore                                                                 Appellant / Complainant

                        Vs.

 

The Secretary

Narthangudi Agricultural Cooperative Bank                              M/s.R. Poornima

Narthangudi                                                                             Counsel for

Needamangalam – 614 404                                    Respondent / Opposite party

 

          The complainant had filed a complaint before the District Commission against the opposite party praying for certain direction. The District Commission had partly allowed the complaint. Against the said order, these appeals have been preferred by the opposite party in FA.No.254/2018 praying to set aside the order of the District Commission dt.10.9.2018 in CC.No.4/2015, and FA.No.242/2019 filed by the complainant as against the order in EA.No.8/2018 in CC.No.4/2015 dt.7.2.2019   praying for allowing the Execution Application.

 

          These appeals coming before us for hearing finally on 2.11.2022, upon hearing the arguments of counsel for opposite party, perusing the documents, lower court records, and the order passed by the District Commission, this commission made the following common order:

 

JUSTICE   R. SUBBIAH,  PRESIDENT    

 

1.       The appeal in FA.No.254/2018 had been filed by the opposite party as against the order of the District Commission, Thiruvarur in CC.No.4/2015 dt.10.9.2018.

 

2.       As against the order in CC.No.4/2015, the complainant had filed an Execution Application in EA.No.8/2018 before the District Commission, which was closed by the District Commission stating that the appeal filed by the opposite party in FA.No.254/2018 is pending before the State Commission.  Against the said order impugned the complainant filed the appeal in FA.No.242/2019 praying to allow the Execution Application.

 

3.       Since both the appeals arise out of the same matter, these appeals are disposed of by way of common order. 

 

4.       For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred as arrayed in the original complaint filed before the District Commission in CC.No.4/2015.

 

5.       The brief facts which are necessary to decide the issues involved in these appeals are as follows:

          The opposite party is a Cooperative Bank, in which the complainant is the customer.  As per GO.Ms.No.48 dt.13.2.2013 the Government had declared 31 districts as drought affected districts and further sanctioned amount to the agriculturist towards drought relief fund.  On the basis of the loss occurred the relief fund has to be disbursed.  Based on the assessment the amount was disbursed to the agriculturist.  The complainant had obtained assessment letter from the Village Administrative Officer, and the relief amount arrived for the respondent was Rs.34,236/-.  Based on the assessment the complainant was disbursed with Rs.8250/- as advance and on the day of disbursement of the advance amount, the complainant was explained about the amount for which he was entitled to and he had also accepted for the same, and also assured that he will not file any case against the society.  Thereafter the complainant had received the entire amount of Rs.34,236/- from the society and had made endorsement to that effect.  Inspite of receiving the entire amount, the complainant approached the District Commission, seeking more relief which is unjust.  Further on verification the opposite party came to know that for the same property the complainant had applied for relief under the aforesaid Government Order in T1344, Needamangalam Agricultural Cooperative Bank, Needamangalam, Tiruvarur. Suppressing the above fact, the complainant had obtained the amount from the opposite party bank also for the second time.  As per the Government Order, no one is entitled for the relief for two times.  Hence a complaint was also lodged against the complainant before the jurisdictional police station, which is pending.  In fact at the time of opening the account, the complainant had stated that he had no other account with anyother bank pertaining to the same survey number.  Concealing the entire facts the complainant had approached two banks for the same survey number and obtained relief.  Now the case of the complainant is that he was paid Rs.8250/- towards 1^st instalment, Rs.21,370/- towards 2^nd instalment, Rs.4616/- towards third instalment.  Totally a sum of Rs.34,236/- was paid out of Rs.70,378/- and a sum of Rs.36,142/- remains to be paid.  Since the said amount is not paid by the opposite party, he has filed the present complaint claiming for compensation and cost apart from payment of the relief amount.

  But due to non-filing of the written version, the opposite party was set exparte, hence an exparte order was passed in favour of the complainant on 22.9.2015. 

Against the order impugned, the opposite party had filed an appeal before this commission in FA.No.193/2017, in which an order had been passed on 6.8.2018 by remanding back the complaint for fresh disposal, on condition that the appellant/ opposite party shall deposit the entire award amount, on or before 3.8.2018,  failing which the appeal shall be dismissed and the order of the District Commission shall stand good. 

 

 

But the opposite party had not complied the conditional order on 10.9.2018, as directed  by this commission as per the order in FA.No.193/2017 dt.6.8.2018,  by way of producing the FDR before the District Commission, hence the District Commission had passed the order as follows:

 “Complainant and opposite party called absent and No representation for bothside.  FDR not produced, written version not filed and the direction of Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai not complied with by the opposite party.  Hence as per the order of the State Commission, the order of this Forum dt.22.9.2015 shall hold good.” 

 

Aggrieved over the order impugned dt.10.9.2018, this appeal in FA.No.254/2018 has been filed by the opposite party. 

 

6.       The learned counsel for the opposite party would contend that on 10.9.2018 there were no staffs in the society.  The Secretary of the Society was also deputed from Angadi.  The appellant was under the impression that their counsel would appear before the District Commission.  But the counsel was unable to appear on that date.  Therefore the non-appearance on their behalf is neither wilful nor wanton.  Thus prayed for another opportunity to contest the matter on merit. 

 

7.       While so, the complainant had filed an Execution Application in EA.No.8/2018, which was ordered to be closed by the District Commission stating that the appeal is pending before the State Commission.   Aggrieved over the said order dt.7.2.2019, the complainant had approached this commission by way of filing appeal in FA.No.242/2019, praying for allowing the Execution Application. 

 

8.       We have heard the learned counsel appeared for the opposite party.  Though the complainant appeared in person, he remained absent during the course of argument.  Hence after hearing the opposite party, perused the materials placed on record and order impugned, we have passed the following order.

 

9.       Having considered the submissions made, we are of the considered opinion that the opposite party was showing their lethargic attitude right from the beginning.  First of all they approached this commission by challenging the exparte order, which was passed due to their non-appearance.  On an appeal, this commission had passed an order by directing the opposite party to deposit entire award amount on or before 3.8.2018, which they failed.  Inspite of the default, by granting one more chance, this commission had allowed the appeal by remanding back the matter for fresh disposal, with a direction to appear before the District Commission on 10.9.2018, and deposit the entire award amount by way of FDR, and also file their version.  But the opposite party had failed to appear on 10.9.2018 also, therefore, the order under challenge dt.10.9.2018 came to be passed by the District Commission.  Therefore, the conduct of the opposite party shows that they are not diligent in conducting the case by putting forth their defence, instead they want to save themselves when situation compels, and leaving the complaint unattended until the next compelling situation arises.  This kind of lethargic attitude is condemnable.  Moreover, as per the order in FA.No.193/2017 this commission had directed the opposite party to deposit the award amount, by fixing a time frame, which the opposite party failed to comply.  Therefore this commission cannot modify the order already passed, which is not permissible in law.  The opposite party shall seek their remedy only by way of appeal before the National Commission.  Though the opposite party narrated too many points on merit for consideration, having failed to comply with the direction of this commission and let the District Commission to allow the complaint, now they cannot knock the doors of this commission praying for modifying the order.  Therefore, finding no valid reason to allow the appeal, we hold the appeal filed by the appellant/ opposite party in FA.No.254/2018 is devoid of merits and thus liable to be dismissed.

 

10.     So far as the appeal filed by the appellant/ complainant in FA.No.242/2019 is concerned, though Execution Application was closed, there is no impediment for the complainant to file fresh Execution Application.  Therefore, the appeal filed by the complainant in FA.No.242/2019 is dismissed, by giving liberty to the complainant to file fresh Execution Application before the District Commission against the order in CC.No.4/2015 dt.10.9.2018. 

 

11.     In the result, the appeal filed by the opposite party in  FA.No.254/2018 is dismissed by confirming the order of the District Commission, Thiruvarur, in CC.No.4/2015 dt.10.9.2018.  There is no order as to cost in this appeal.

          The appeal filed by the complainant in FA.No.242/2019 is dismissed, by giving liberty to the complainant to file fresh Execution Application before the District Commission against the order in CC.No.4/2015 dt.10.9.2018.  There is no order as to cost in this appeal.

 

 

 

R  VENKATESAPERUMAL                                                                     R. SUBBIAH

           MEMBER                                                                                          PRESIDENT