IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOLLAM

                                                    C.C.No. 119/2021

PRESENT

SMT. S.K.SREELA, B.A.L, LL.B, PRESIDENT

SRI.  STANLY HAROLD, B.A.LL.B, MEMBER

                                                  ORDER DATED:   29.06.2024

BETWEEN

Kunjamma A.,

Kekeyam, T.D.Nagar-105,

Cutcherry, Kollam 691013.                                                                       :           Complainant

(By Adv.R.Vimal Nath)

AND

1.   Directors,

M/s.Mary Rani Popular Nidhi Ltd.,

Door No.XIII/526, Popular Tower,Annexe, Vakayar P.O.,

2.   Riya Ann Thomas,

Director, M/s.Mary Rani Popular Nidhi Ltd.,

Door No.XIII/526, Popular Tower,

Annexe, Vakayar P.O., Pathanamthitta

Residing at Indyakattil House, Vakayar P.O., Konni.

3.   Reeba Mary Thomas, Director,

M/s.Mary Matha Popular Nidhi Ltd.,

Door No.XIII/526, Popular Tower,

Annexe, Vakayar P.O., Pathanamthitta

Residing at Indyakattil House, Vakayar P.O., Konni.

4.  Rinu Mariyam Thomas, Director,

M/s.Mary Matha Popular Nidhi Ltd.,

Door No.XIII/526, Popular Tower,

Annexe, Vakayar P.O., Pathanamthitta

Residing at Indyakattil House, Vakayar P.O., Konni.

5.   Martin, Manager,

M/s.Mary Matha Popular Nidhi Ltd.,

Branch at High School Junction, Kollam.                                          :Opposite Parties

ORDER

Stanly Harold, B.A.LLB, Member

            This complaint is filed U/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019.           

The brief facts of the complaint are as follows:-

The complainant is a retired Government Headmistress from an aided school.  The opposite parties, personally and through the media represented to the complainant that they are authorized to collect deposits from the public and also assured that the agreed interest as well as the principal amount will be returned on demand and they represented that they are financially sound and well disciplined with the depositor’s money.  The 5^th opposite party personally called the complainant over the phone and was repeating the claims and offers to repayment while canvasing deposits/further deposits.  In the result the complainant made the deposits on the personal guarantee and assurances of the 5^th opposite party also on the promptitude in repayments.  As a matter of fact the complainant had to close a couple of deposits at a time of reliable information about the massive fraud by the opposite parties.  The 5^th opposite party only assured the complainant about the company’s liquidity position.  Otherwise the complainant could easily have got the two deposits mentioned in the complaint long back.  5^th opposite party was colluding and conspiring with the others.  He was fully aware of the ongoing massive embezzlements.   The complainant was thus holding two deposits in her name with the high school junction branch of the opposite party.  These deposits were renewed from time to time without even drawing the annual interest.  Deposit bearing No.1020391700117 dated 19.12.2017 for Rs.400000/- is to mature on 19.03.2021 and the same was to carry interest @ 12% per annum.  Even though the complainant tried to close the deposit during June 2020, the 5^th opposite party refused payment saying that they have no sufficient funds.  The 2^nd deposit bearing No.1020391900051 dated 06.08.2019 was for Rs.500068/- and the same matured on 06.11.2020.  The said deposit also was carrying interest at 11% per annum.  The branch is now remaining closed and this deposit also is unpaid.  Thereafter in the middle of 2020, reports about the massive embezzlement of depositor’s money by the opposite parties appeared in the media.  The opposite parties are reported to have dishonestly misappropriated the funds and channelized the money to unknown destinations.  Thousands of depositors across the country are cheated.  All the branches shuttered down voluntarily or by intervention of law enforcement agencies.  The parents and close relatives of opposite parties 2 to 4 also practiced deception and cheating.  They were running business under the name and style of Popular Traders, Popular Financiers etc.  That the complainant did not get the money deposited as detailed above.  The complainant submitted a petition dated 16.09.2020 to the City Police Commissioner and others.  It is further pleaded that the formation of the 1^st opposite party itself was with fraudulent intentions.  The opposite parties 2 to 5 purposefully siphoned off the money and cheated the complainant and others.  The company went into liquidity issues purely due to ill management, malfeasance and deliberate and intentional criminal activities of the opposite parties 2 to 5.  Hence opposite parties 2 to 5 are personally liable to settle the depositor’s dues and failure of the opposite parties to honour their assurances resulting in nonpayment of the amounts due as per the above deposits constitute unfair trade practice and deficiency in services.  The complainant is entitled for the refund of the amount along with compensation and costs.  Hence the complaint.   

Notice from the Commission was issued to the  opposite parties and it was unserved stating that opposite parties 1 to 5 locked.  Thereafter paper publication has been effected.  But opposite parties 1 to 5 failed to appear before the Commission and they were set exparte.  The complainant filed chief affidavit in lieu of chief examination and reiterated the averments in the complaint and got marked Exts.P1 to P4 documents.  Ext.P1 is the fixed deposit receipt issued from Mary Rani Popular Nidhi Ltd. dated 19.12.2017 for Rs.400000/- Ext.P2 is the fixed deposit receipt issued from Mary Rani Popular Nidhi Ltd. dated 06.08.2019  for Rs.500068/-Ext.P3 is the office copy of the petition dated 16.09.2020 to the City Police Commissioner.  Ext.P4 is the copy of acknowledgment card.

It is pertinent to note that the complainant is a retired Headmistress and her retirement benefits have been deposited in the opposite party bank believing their words.

Based on the uncontroverted testimony of the complainant and the supporting documents, Ext.P1 to P4, it can be concluded that the complainant presented sufficient evidence to support their case and justify the relief she is seeking.

The act of the opposite parties has caused much mental agony and financial distress to the complainant who was a teacher for a long span of time.  The act of the opposite parties to the complainant is one of the deceitful one.

The available materials on record indicate that the complainant made repeated requests to the opposite parties for the withdrawal of their deposits, but the opposite parties refused to comply by withholding both the interest and principal amount. This clear and deliberate withholding of funds by the opposite parties amounts to illegal enrichment and demonstrates a breach of their contractual obligations. This indicates a deficiency in service and an unfair trade practice.

This case revolves around the complainant engaging the services of the opposite parties in exchange for payment. However, the opposite parties deliberately, unlawfully, and arbitrarily failed to fulfill their obligations and provide the agreed-upon service to the complainant. The complainant had duly complained to the jurisdictional police officers and it is understood that crimes are registered and being investigated. The opposite parties explicitly agreed to promptly pay interest on the fixed deposit amount on a monthly basis, as well as repay the fixed deposit amount upon maturity or upon the complainant’s request. Nevertheless, the opposite parties failed to honor their commitments, thereby demonstrating clear deficiency in their service to the complainant.  Furthermore, the opposite parties' refusal to return the complainant’s funds represents an illegal act of withholding money for their own illicit enrichment. Such actions further support the complainant’s claims of contractual violation, deficiency in service, and unfair trade practices. Therefore, it is evident that the opposite parties' conduct in this case demonstrates clear instances of deficiency in service, contractual violation, and unfair trade practices. The complainant is justified in seeking redress for the damages and losses incurred as a result of the opposite parties' actions.

Therefore, based on the evidence presented, it can be concluded that the complainant has established her case and is entitled to the relief she is seeking.

 In the result the complaint is allowed.   The opposite parties 1 to 4 are directed to  pay  to the complainant an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- with 12% interest from 19.12.2017 and Rs.500068/- with 11% interest from 06.08.2019, till the date of realization.  The opposite parties 1 to 5 are directed to pay Rs.10,000/- towards compensation and Rs.5,000/- costs of the proceedings. The opposite parties 1 to 5 are jointly and severally directed to comply with the above directions within 45 days from the date of receipt of the order failing which the complainant can initiate execution proceedings.    

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant  Smt. Minimol S. transcribed and typed by her corrected by me and pronounced in the  Open Commission this the 29^th day of  June 2024.

Sd/-

STANLY HAROLD

MEMBER

Sd/-

S.K.SREELA

PRESIDENT

Forwarded/by Order                

                            Senior superintendent

INDEX

Witnesses Examined for the Complainant:-Nil

Documents marked for the  complainant

Ext.P1             : Fixed deposit receipt issued from Mary Rani Popular Nidhi Ltd.

                          dated 19.12.2017 for Rs.400000/-

Ext.P2             : Fixed deposit receipt issued from Mary Rani Popular Nidhi Ltd.

                          dated 06.08.2019  for Rs.500068/-

Ext.P3             : Office copy of the petition dated 16.09.2020 to the City Police Commissioner

Ext.P4             : Copy of acknowledgment card

Witnesses Examined for the opposite parties:-Nil

Documents marked for opposite parties:-Nil                                                                       

                      Sd/-                    

PRESIDENT