IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATHANAMTHITTA,
Dated this the 17th day of May, 2012.
Present : Sri. Jacob Stephen (President)
Sri. N. Premkumar (Member)
Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member)
C.C. No.1/2007 (Remanded)
Between:
Kuruvilla Mathai,
International Printing Press,
P.O. Box 33195, Isa Town,
Bahrain represented by his wife/
Authorized agent Mini. A.,
Poovannilkunnathil House,
Pullad P.O., Thiruvalla,
Pathanamthititaa Dist.
(By Adv. Anzil Zachariah) .... Complainant.
And:
1. Friends Chits & Financiers,
Opp. Post Office,
Pullad P.O., represented by
Managing Partner P.C. Jacob
residing at Puthethu Illampurayidathi
House, Kuriannoor P.O., Thiruvalla.
2. P.C. Jacob, Managing Partner,
Friends Chits & Financiers,
Opp. Post Office, Pullad P.O.,
residing at Puthethu Illampurayidathi
House, Kuriannoor P.O., Thiruvalla.
(By Adv. Sri. Mathew Kuriakose) .... Opposite parties.
ORDER
Sri. Jacob Stephen (President):
The complainant has filed this complaint against the opposite parties for getting a relief from the Forum.
2. The brief facts of the complaint is as follows: The first opposite party is a financial institution and the second opposite party is the Managing Partner of the first opposite party. On 01.09.2004, the complainant’s husband Kuruvilla Mathai deposited ` 1,00,000 as fixed deposit at the rate of 24% interest with the opposite parties for which the second opposite party issued a fixed deposit receipt. Thereafter, complainant deposited an amount of ` 3,55,419-45 at the rate of 20% interest in the joint name of the complainant’s husband and her son Master Rohit. At the time of the said deposit, the second opposite party assured that the amount will be refunded at any time with 20% interest. On 2.09.2006, when the fixed deposit got matured, the complainant approached the first opposite party for the refund of the fixed deposit amount with its interest. At that time, the complainant came to know that the first opposite party had closed his establishment and the second opposite party was absconded. Thereafter the complainant visited the house of the second opposite arty and made repeated request for the refund. But the requests bone no fruits. The non-return of the deposit amount by the opposite parties is a clear deficiency in service which caused financial loss and mental agony to the complainant and the opposite parties are liable to the complainant for the same. Hence this complaint for the realization of the entire deposit amount with 20% interest from April 2006 along with compensation of ` 5,000 and cost of ` 2,500.
3. Opposite parties entered appearance and filed their version with the following main contentions: Opposite parties denied that the complainant or her husband has not deposited any amount in their institution as alleged by the complainant. The complaint is false and is liable to be dismissed in limini. The complainant is not entitled to file this complaint as the deposits are made by her husband and the complainant has not adduced any evidence to show that she is the authorized representative of her husband for filing this complaint. With the above contentions, opposite parties prays for the dismissal of the complaint with their cost.
4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, this Forum had taken the evidence for the complainant which consists of the oral testimony of PW1 based on her proof affidavit and Exts. A1 and A2. Opposite parties have not adduced any oral or documentary evidence in their favour. But the counsel for the opposite parties cross examined the complainant.
5. On the basis of the available evidence, this Forum dismissed this complaint on the finding that the complainant is not competent to file this complaint as she had not produced any authorization from the actual depositors.
6. Being aggrieved by the order of this Forum, the complainant preferred an Appeal before the Hon’ble Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram as Appeal No. 197/2009 and the Hon’ble CDRC after hearing the matter set aside the order of this Forum and remitted the matter to this Forum by allowing the complainant to amend the cause title of the complaint and for producing the authorization and to contest the case before this Forum.
7. Accordingly, the complainant filed proper authorization of the actual depositors before this Forum and amended the cause title. In this stage, opposite parties remain as exparte. Hence complainant’s evidence was taken which consists of the proof affidavit of the complainant and Exts. A1 to A3. Thereafter, the complaint was allowed on the basis of the evidence adduced from the side of the complainant against the opposite parties.
8. Being aggrieved by the order of this Forum, opposite parties preferred an Appeal before the Hon’ble CDRC as Appeal No. 749/2011. The said Appeal was allowed by the Hon’ble CDRC and set aside the order of this Forum and allowed the opposite parties for contesting the matter before this Forum with a direction to pay cost of `10,000 to the complainant and to deposit an amount of `1,00,000 before this Forum as condition for allowing the Appeal.
9. Accordingly, opposite parties complied the directions of the Hon’ble CDRC and appeared before this Forum. The complainant also appeared before this Forum. On appearance of both parties before this Forum, this Forum posted the complaint for taking fresh evidence of both parties.
9. Accordingly, the complainant adduced oral evidence as PW1 on the basis of the proof affidavit filed in the earlier stage and at the time of examination of PW1, 3 documents filed earlier were marked as Exts. A1 to A3. Ext. A1 is the authorization executed by the complainant’s husband in favour of his wife, the complainant. Ext. A2 is the fixed deposit receipt No. 669 dated 01.09.2004 for ` 1,00,000 issued by the opposite parties in the name of the complainant’s husband. Ext. A3 is the pass book of account No. 431 in the name of the complainant’s husband and her son issued from opposite parties’ institution showing a total credit balance of ` 3,55,419-45 as on 06.04.2006.
10. For the opposite parties, 3 witnesses filed proof affidavits and on the basis of the proof affidavits, they were examined as DWs.1 to 3. After closure of evidence, both sides were heard.
11. On the basis of the contentions and arguments of the parties, the only point to be considered is whether this complaint can be allowed or not?
12. The Point: The complainant’s allegation is that the amount deposited by her husband is not returned by the opposite parties in spite of repeated demands by the complainant. On the other hand, the contention of the opposite parties as per their version is that they have not collected any amount from the complainant as claimed by them. At the same time, the contention of the opposite parties as per the proof affidavits of their witnesses is that the entire amount collected from the complainant was returned without obtaining the original receipts under an understanding.
13. The inconsistent contention of the opposite parties itself shows that the opposite parties have not returned the amounts entitled to the complainant. Further the depositions of DWs.1 to 3 cannot be considered as a valuable evidence as they are highly interested witnesses being DWs.1 and 2 are the sons of the second opposite party and DW3 is a close associate of the opposite parties and DWs.1 and 2. In the absence of any cogent evidence supporting the contentions of opposite parties, we are constrained to accept the evidence of the complainant and found that the opposite parties have not returned the amounts entitled to the complainant. The non-return of the deposited amount by the opposite parties is a clear deficiency in service and the opposite parties are liable to return the deposited amount with its interest. Hence this complaint is allowable.
14. In the result, this complaint is allowed, thereby the second opposite party being the Managing Partner of the first opposite party is directed to pay the fixed deposit amount of ` 1,00,000 (Rupees One lakh only) as per Ext. A2 with the agreed rate of interest of 20% per annum from 01.09.2004 and ` 3,55,419 (Rupees Three lakhs fifty five thousand four hundred and nineteen only) as per Ext. A3 pass book along with 10% interest per annum from 06.04.2006 and cost of ` 5,000 (Rupees Five thousand only) to the complainant within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant is allowed to realize the whole amount with 12% interest per annum from today till the realization of the whole amount. Since interest is allowed for the deposited amount, no orders for compensation.
Dictated to the Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed and typed by him, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 17th day of May, 2012.
(Sd/-)
Jacob Stephen,
(President)
Sri. N. Premkumar (Member) : (Sd/-)
Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member) : (Sd/-)
Appendix:
Witness examined on the side of the complainant:
PW1 : Mini. A.
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:
A1 : Authorisation letter dated 10.06.2009 executed by the
complainant in favour of his wife Mini. A.
A2 : Fixed deposit receipt No. 669 dated 01.09.2004 for Rs.
1,00,000 issued by the opposite parties to the complainant.
A3 : Pass book of account No. 431 in the name of the
complainant’s husband and her son issued from opposite
parties’ institution.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties:
DW1 : Sajan Jacob.
DW2 : Santhosh Jacob.
DW3 : Chandran Pilla.
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties: Nil.
(By Order)
(Sd/-)
Senior Superintendent.
Copy to:- (1) Mini. A., Poovannilkunnathil House, Pullad P.O.,
Thiruvalla, Pathanamthitta Dist.
(2) P.C. Jacob, Puthethu Illampurayidathil House,
Kuriannoor P.O., Thiruvalla.
(3) The Stock File.
