IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Friday the 30th day of March, 2012
Filed on 10-10-2011
Present
- Sri. Jimmy Korah (President)
- Sri. K. Anirudhan (Member)
- Smt. N. Shajitha Beevi (Member)
in
C.C.No.333/2011
between
Complainant :- | Opposite parties:- |
Sri. Radhakrishnan, S/o Govindan, Remya House, Neerkkunnam Muri, Ambalappuzha Taluk. (Adv. A.T. Pradheep kumar, Alappuzha) | 1. General Secretary, Nair Service Society, NSS Head Quarters, Perunna, Changanassery (Adv. B. Sivadas, Alappuzha) 2. NSS Karayogam, NSS Branch No. 1365, Neerkkunnam, Ambalapuzha, Rep. By its Secretary. 3. Gopalakrishnan Unnithan, Cheppanadu Veedu, Neerkunnam P.O, Secretary, NSS Karayogam, NSS Branch No . 1365, Neerkkunnam, Ambalapuzha. 4. Purushothama Kaimal, Parvathy Vilasam, Neerkkunnam.P.O, President, NSS Karayogam, NSS Branch No. 1365, Neerkkunnam, Ambalapuzha. (Adv. K.V. Subha kumar, Alappuzha) |
O R D E R
SRI.K.ANIRUDHAN (MEMBER)
Sri. Radhakrishnan has filed this complaint before the Forum on 10.10.2011 alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The brief facts of the allegations of the complainant are as follows; The Opposite parties were the administrators of the NSS Karayogam, Neerkunnam . The opposite parties had assured the depositors that they will give investors @ 24% interest per annum. On the assurance of the opposite parties 2 to 4 he had deposited a total sum of Rs.75,000/- before the Sakha Yogam on 13/11/99. The 3rd opposite party issued pass book at the time of the deposite of the said amount and that 3rd opposite party had paid interest till 7/08/2006 for the said deposit. Thereafter the opposite parties failed to pay the interest or deposited amount till date, even though he had requested several times to return the amount. Since there was no positive steps to return the deposited amount with interest, he has filed this complaint seeking relief.
2. Notices were issued to the opposite parties. They have entered appearance through counsel and filed version.
3. In the version of the first opposite party, it is stated that they are the incorporated as a company under the provisions of the companies Act and that they are a society as per its Memmorandam and Articles of Association and established various units namely ‘ Karayogams’ and that the second opposite party is one among the Karayogam which is administered by a bye law and rules framed separately. It is further stated that the finish opposite party has not authorized the other opposite parties or any of the Karayogam to conduct any financial scheme or to receive any fixed deposits from public; and that the first opposite party is totally unaware about such a financial scheme run by the other opposite parties. It is stated that the first opposite party has neither given permission nor the other opposite party have sought for the permission from them to run such a financial scheme. If the other opposite parties have received Fixed deposits from public, those act done by other opposite parties are without the permission from them, and it was against the Bye Laws. The entire transactions were done by the opposite parties 2 to 4 and first opposite party has no role in that. It is further stated that the first opposite party had never requested the complainant to join the said scheme.
4. In the version filed by the opposite parties 2 to 4, it is stated that the complaint is barred by limitation, and that the complainant had deposited a sum of Rs. 75,000/- with the 2nd opposite party on 13/11/99 for a period of one year. It is stated that the 2nd opposite party is liable to pay the amount if any due to the complainant. Since the amount is duly entered in the account of the 2nd opposite party; and that opposite parties 3 and 4 have no personnal liability for the amount. It is further stated that the 2nd opposite party had not received the deposite from the publice and opposite parties 2 and 3 did not invite the complainant to deposite any amount with the 2nd opposite party. It is stated that the complainant had with draw the amount on various dates from the 2nd opposite party and that if the complainant has to get any amount, it should be from the 2nd opposite party.
5. Considering the contentions of the parties, this forum has raised the following issues for consideration;
1) Whether there is any deficiency in service and negligence on the side of the opposite parties?
2) Whether the complainant is entitled to get back the deposited amounts with the interest?
3) Whether the complainant is entitled to get compensation and cost ?
6. Issues 1 to 3:- Complainant has filed proof affidavit and produced one document in evidence – Ext.A1 marked. Ext. A1 is the Pass book issued by the opposite party at the time of deposit, with the seal of the 2nd opposite party. The pass book shows that the deposited amount was Rs.75,000/-. It further shows that the opposite parties have paid interest up to 07/08/2006. Opposite parties 2 to 4 have filed counter affidavit and not produced any document in evidence- we have heard the matter in detail.
7. On a careful study of the entire matter of this case, it can be seen that as per the assurance given by the opposite parties, the complainant had deposited the amount of Rs.75,000/- in the Sakha Yogam administered by the opposite parties. The opposite parties had paid interest to the complainant for a certain period, for the said deposited amount. Since the opposite parties had defaulted payment of interest, the complainant requested the opposite parties to return the deposited amount with interest. But the opposite parties have not shown any effort to return the same. It is alleged that the complainant had contacted the opposite parties several times to get back the deposited amount. But the opposite parties have not turned up. This will amounts to cheating. The entire actions on the part of the opposite parties another shows the deficiency in service and negligence by way of purposeful refusal to repay the deposited amount with interest to the complainant in time. There is no justification on the part of the opposite parties in retaining the amount with them which is payable to the complainant. The entire action of the opposite parties shows their irresponsible attitude towards this transaction. The contentions raised by the opposite parties 2 to 4, through their version cannot be accepted as valid ground to deny repayment , since it lacks merit and it cannot be treated as genuine. The contentions of the opposite parties have no bonafids. The amounts are collected from the complainant by the opposite parties 2 to 4 are without the consent or knowledge of the 1st opposite party. So the first opposite party has no role in this financial transaction. The complainant is fully entitled to get back the deposited amounts with interest from the opposite parties 2 to 4. Since there is deficiency in service and negligence on the part of the opposite parties 2 to 4 , by way purposeful denial of repayment of the fixed deposit amount to the complainant in time the complainant is fully entitled to get compensation and costs from the opposite parties and that the opposite parties are jointly and severely liable for that. Considering, the whole aspects of this case, we are fully convinced that the allegations put forward by the complainant against the opposite parties are highly genuine. So the complaint is to be allowed. All the issues are found in favour of the complainant.
In the result, for the ends of justice, we hereby direct the opposite parties 2 to 4 to return the deposited amount of Rs.75,000/- (Rupees Seventy five thousand only) to the complainant along with 24% interest per annum from 7/08/2006 to till the date of repayment of the entire amount to the complainant and pay a compensation of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) to the complainant for his mental agony, pain, sufferings, inconvenience and loss due to the grossest deficiency in service culpable negligence and unfair trade promote on the part of the opposite parties 2 to 4 by way of purposeful refusal to return back the deposited amounts and its interest in time to the complainant. We direct the opposite parties 2 to 4 to pay a sum of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) as cost of this proceedings and ordered that the complainant is free to proceed against the assets of opposite parties 2 to 4 in case any violent of this order. We further direct the opposite parties to pay the above said amounts to the complainant within the 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.
Pronounced in open Forum on this the 30th day of March, 2012.
Sd/-Sri.K. Anidudhan:
Sd/-Sri. Jimmy Korah:
Sd/-Smt. N. Shajitha Beevi
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
Ext. A1 - Pass Book
Evidence of the opposite parties:- Nil
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite parties/S.F.
Typed by:-sh/-
Compared by:-
