IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA

Thursday the 31^st day of March, 2011

Filed on 19.11.10

Present

1. Sri. Jimmy Korah (President)
2. Sri. K. Anirudhan (Member)
3. Smt. Shajitha Beevi (Member)              in

C.C.No.308/10

between

Complainant:-                                                             Opposite Parties:-

     Smt.Thriveni,                                               1.         The General Secretary, Nair Service Society,

     W/o Sreedharan Nair,                                             N.S.S, Head Quarters, Perunna,

     Veni Bhavan,                                                           Changanacherry.                                                      

     Punnapra Mury,                                                      (By Adv.B.Sivadas)

     Punnapra Village                                         

     Ambalappuzha.                                            2.         N.S.S Karayogam, N.S.S Branch No.1365,

     (By Adv.A.T.Pradeep Kumar)                                 Neerkkunnam, Ambalappuzha,

                                                                                 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.         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 that the complainant on 20^th July 2002 deposited an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees one lac only) and on 7^th May 2003 an amount of Rs.1,80,000/- (Rupees one lac eighty thousand only) with the 2^nd opposite party taking the total to Rs.2,80,000/- (Rupees two lacs eighty thousand only). To the said effect the complainant was issued a passbook with the deposited amount duly noted by the 3^rd opposite party therein. The complainant deposited the said amount in as much as the 3^rd and the 4^th 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 7^th August 2006. Notwithstanding repeated requests and demands, the opposite party was disinclined to provide the interest thereafter or to hand back the deposited amount to the complainant. The business activities of the 2^nd opposite party is being controlled and administered by the 1^st opposite party. The 1^st opposite party is accountable for the assets and liability of the 2^nd opposite party. The 3^rd and 4^th opposite parties allured and induced the complainant with appealing assurances to deposit the said amount with the 2^nd opposite party. The opposite parties have not paid back the deposited amount or interest till date. There is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. The complainant sustained inexplicable mental agony and monetary loss. Got aggrieved on this, the complainant approached this Forum for compensation and other relief. The opposite parties 1 to 4 are equally liable to the complainant. The complainant contends that he is entitled to recover an amount of Rs.2,80,000/- (Rupees two lacs eighty thousand only) with interest from the date of default of the same till the date of its recovery along with other relief.

1. Notice issued to the opposite parties. The opposite parties turned up and filed versions. The 1^st opposite party filed version separately. The contention of the 1^st opposite party is that the said opposite party has not entered into any transaction with the complainant. The 1^st opposite party never approached the complainant to get him deposit any amount with the 2^nd opposite party. The complainant is not the consumer of the 1^st opposite party. As such the 1^st opposite party is not accountable for the financial liability of the 2^nd opposite party, the 1^st opposite party argues. The complaint is only to be dismissed with cost, the 1^st 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 2^nd opposite party alone is liable. The 1^st opposite party has no connection or link with the 2^nd opposite party.  The 3^rd and 4^th 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 evidence consists of the testimony of the complainant himself as PW1 and the documents Exbts Al 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 questions arise, on the basis of the contentions in the compliant for consideration is:-

(a) Whether the complainant had withdrawn the deposited amount?

(b) Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief sought for in the complaint?

4. According to the 1^st opposite party, the complainant is not its consumer, and the 1^st opposite party is not liable for the acts of the 2^nd 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 1^st opposite party approached the complainant seeking any deposit, or authorized or acknowledged the 2^nd 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 1^st 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.2,80,000/-(Rupees two lacs eighty 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.2,80,000/- (Rupees two lacs eighty thousand only) with 12% interest from 7^th August 2006 till its realization. The said opposite parties are also directed to pay a compensation of Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand only) and a cost of Rs.l000/- (Rupees thousand only) to the complainant. The 2^nd 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.

Pronounced in open Forum on this the 31^st 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 & A2               -           The Original Pass Books

Ext. A3                        -           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:-