IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Thursday the 31st day of March, 2011
Filed on 19.11.10
Present
- Sri. Jimmy Korah (President)
- Sri. K. Anirudhan (Member)
- Smt. Shajitha Beevi (Member)
in
C.C.No.309/10
between
Complainant:- Opposite Parties:-
Smt.Anjana, 1. General Secretary, Nair Service Society,
D/oThriveni, N.S.S.Head Quarters, Perunna, Changanacherry.
Venibhavan, (By Adv.B.Sivadas)
Punnapra Muryil,
Punnapra Village, 2. N.S.S.Karayogam, N.S.S. Branch No.1365, Ambalappuzha Thaluk. Neerkkunnam, Ambalappuzha,
(By Adv.A.T.Pradeepkumar) Rep. by its Secretary.
3. Sri.Gopalakrishnan Unnithan,
Cheppanadu Veedu, Neerkkunnam.P.O.,
Secretary, N.S.S Karayogam,
N.S.S Branch No.1365, Neerkkunnam, Ambalappuzha.
4. Sri.Purushothama Kaimal,
Parvathy Vilasam, Neerkkunnam.P.O.,
President, N.S.S Karayogam,
N.S.S Branch No.1365, Neerkkunnam, Ambalappuzha,
(By Adv.K.V.Subhakumar)
O R D E R
SRI.JIMMY KORAH (PRESIDENT)
The complainant case is as follows: -. The complainant on 29th June 2004 deposited an amount of Rs.1,20,000/-(Rupees one lac twenty thousand only), on 22nd July 2005 an amount of Rs.2,00,000/-(Rupees two lacs only) and on 23rd September 2005 deposited an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees one lac only) with the 2nd opposite party taking the total to an amount of Rs.4,20,000/-(Rupees four lacs twenty thousand only). To the said effect the complainant was issued a passbook with the said amounts duly noted down by the 3rd opposite party therein. The complainant deposited the said amount inasmuch as the 3rd and the 4th opposite parties had offered 24% interest to the deposits. Despite the said assurance, the opposite parties did not pay any interest to the complainant subsequent to 7th August 2006. Notwithstanding repeated requests and demands, the opposite party was disinclined to provide the interest or to hand back the deposited amount. The business activities of the 2nd opposite party is being controlled and administered by the 1st opposite party. The 1st opposite party is accountable for the assets and liability of the 2nd opposite party. The 3rd and 4th opposite parties defalcated the deposited amounts to amass assets in their own name and in the name of their relatives. There is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. The complainant sustained inexplicable mental agony and monetary loss. The opposite parties 1 to 4 are equally liable to the complainant. The complainant contends that she is entitled to recover an amount of Rs.4,20,000/-(Rupees four lacs twenty thousand only) with 24% interest from 7th August 2006 till the date of its recovery along with other relief. Hence the complaint.
1. Notice issued to the opposite parties. The opposite parties turned up and filed versions. The 1st opposite party filed separate version. The contention of the 1st opposite party is that the said opposite party has not entered into any transaction with the complainant. The 1st opposite party never approached the complainant to get him deposit any amount with the 2nd opposite party. The complainant is not the consumer of the 1st opposite party. As such the 1st opposite party is not accountable for the financial liability of the 2nd opposite party, the 1st opposite party argues. The complaint is only to be dismissed with cost, the 1st opposite party submits. The contention of the opposite parties 2 to 4 is that the complaint is barred by limitation. If at all any amount is due to the complainant the 2nd opposite party alone is liable. The 1st opposite party has no connection or link with the 2nd opposite party. The 3rd and 4th opposite parties haven't solicited any deposit from the complainant nor have offered any interest to the deposit. The complainant had withdrawn the amount he deposited. The complainant is not entitled to any relief. The complaint is only to be dismissed.
2. The complainant’s evidence consists of the testimony of the complainant himself (P.H.) as PW1 and the documents Exbts A1 and A2 were marked. On the side of the opposite parties except the complainant being cross-examined no evidence either oral or documentary was adduced.
3. The sole question arises, on the basis of the contentions in the complaint for consideration are:-
(a) Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief sought for in the complaint?
(b) Compensation and cost?
4. According to the 1st opposite party, the complainant is not its consumer, and the 1st opposite party is not liable for the acts of the 2nd opposite party. We perused the materials available on record. It appears that in the eye of law, the said opposite party has no any direct link or association with the other opposite parties. That apart, no material is there on record to show that the 1st opposite party approached the complainant seeking any deposit, or authorized or acknowledged the 2nd opposite party accepting the deposit from the general public. In this context, we are unable to accept the version advanced by the complainant in respect of the 1st opposite party. It is worthwhile to note that the factum of deposit or amount so deposited is appeared to have not been denied or disputed by the other opposite parties. However, the opposite parties specific contention is that the deposit amount was given back to the complainant. As to these contentions, seemingly no evidence that support or substantiate the said contention has been let in. Needless to mention, mere making statements do not take the place of proof. The complainant case is that the complainant deposited a total amount of Rs.4,20,000/-(Rupees four lacs twenty thousand only) with the opposite parties. The complainant have been making hard endeavor to get back the deposit amount and the interest. The opposite parties have not effected payment of the deposited amount till the filing of the complaint. In this context, we are of the strong view that the contention of the opposite parties that the complaint is barred by limitation does not merit acceptance. As we have already observed, the opposite parties have not disputed the deposit of the amount or refuted the complainant's contention that the same or the interest was not disbursed till date. More over the complainant produced Exbts A2 which indubitably affirms the complainant case. Needless to say, there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. The opposite parties inflicted mental agony to the complainant. We have no hesitation to hold that the complainant is entitled to relief.
For the forgoing discussion, the opposite parties 2 to 4 are directed to pay the complainant the deposit amount of Rs.4,20,000/-(Rupees four lacs twenty thousand only) with 12% interest from 7th August 2006 till its realization. The said opposite parties are also directed to pay a compensation of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) and a cost of Rs.1,000/-(Rupees one thousand only) to the complainant. The 2nd opposite party and its assets are liable for the said amount. The opposite parties shall comply with the order within 30days of date of this order.
The complaint is allowed accordingly.
Pronounced in open Forum on this the 31st day of March, 2011.
Sd/-Sri. Jimmy Korah
Sd/-Sri. K. Anirudhan
Sd/-Smt. N. Shajitha Beevi
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - K.P.Sreedharan Nair (Witness)
Ext. A1 - The original Pass Book
Ext. A2 - The copy of the General Power of Attorney
Evidence of the opposite parties:- Nil
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite Parties/S.F.
Typed by:- k.x/-
Compared by:-
