IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA

Thursday the 31^st day of March, 2011

Filed on 10.11.10

Present

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

in

C.C.No.293/10

between

Complainant:-                                                             Opposite Parties:-

     Sri.N.Karunakaran Nair,                             1.         S.N.D.P Sakha Yogam, Kollam-01,

     W/o Madathil Veedu,                                              Rep. by its General Secretary.

     Punnapra.P.O., 688 004

     Ambalappuzha Thaluk,                                2.         S.N.D.P Sakha Yogam Branch No.363,                      

    Alappuzha District.                                                  Kakkazham, Neerkkunnam.P.O., TDMC,

                                                                                    Alappuzha-05, Rep by its Secretary.                            

                                                                        3.         Sri.P.G.Babu (President)

                                                                                    S.N.D.P Sakha Yogam Branch No.363,

                                                                                    S/o Gangadharan, Kopparakkadavu,

                                                                                    Kakkazham, Alappuzha.

                                                                        4.         Sri.Bhaskaran, (Secretary),

                                                                                    S.N.D.P Sakha Yogam Branch No.363,

                                                                                    S/o Kesavan, Anavelil Veedu,

                                                                                    Neerkkunnam, Alappuzha.

O R D E R

SRI.JIMMY KORAH (PRESIDENT)

The complainant’s case is as follows: - The complainant is a retired high school teacher. The complainant on 6^th August 2001 deposited an amount of Rs.30000/­(Rupees thirty thousand only) with the 2^nd opposite party. To the said effect the complainant was issued a passbook with the amount duly noted therein. Again on 9^th October 2006 the complainant deposited another amount of Rs.4040/-(Rupees four thousand forty only) with the same opposite party. The complainant deposited the said amount in as much as the 3^rd and the 4^th opposite parties had offered 12% interest to the deposits. Despite the said assurance, the opposite parties did not pay any interest to the complainant subsequent to 9^th October 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 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 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 he is entitled to recover an amount of Rs.34040/-(Rupees thirty four thousand forty only) with 12% interest from 9^th October 2009 till the date of its recovery along with other relief. Hence the complaint.

1. Notice issued to the opposite parties. The 1^st opposite party alone turned up and filed version. The others were set Ex-parte. The contention of the 1^st opposite party is that the said opposite party has not entered into any transaction with the complainant. The complainant is not the consumer of the 1^st opposite party. The 2^nd opposite party is not the branch of the 1^st opposite party, and the same 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.

2. The complainant evidence consists of the testimony of the complainant himself as PW1, and the document Exbt A1 was marked. The 1^st opposite party cross­-examined the complainant.

3. The sole question arises, on the basis of the contentions in the compliant for consideration is:-

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

(b) Compensation and cost?

4. The 1^st opposite party alone turned up and made it a point to counter the complainant case. 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. As we have already observed, the other opposite parties, notwithstanding being summoned have not turned up nor have contended the complainant case. On the other hand, the complainant duly produced the relevant pass Book. The Pass Book evidently shows that the complainant has deposited Rs.34040/-(Rupees thirty four thousand and forty only), and subsequent thereto to 9^th October 2006, the opposite parties haven't paid the offered interest to the complainant. The complainant affirms that he suffered both monetary and mental woes. As we have already observed, the opposite parties 2 to 4 were neither keen on appearing before this forum nor to rebut the evidence let in by the complainant. Needless to say the complainant's evidence stands unchallenged and we have no course open but to accept the evidence of the complainant.  In the light of this aspect, we hold that the complainant is entitled to an amount of Rs.34040/-(thirty four thousand and forty only) with 12% interest from 9^th October 2009 till the date of its recovery. Apparently, there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.

For the forgoing discussion, the opposite parties 2 to 4 are directed to pay the complainant the deposit amount of Rs.34040/-(Rupees thirty four thousand and forty only), with 12% interest from 9^th October 2006 till its realization. The complainant is also entitled to a compensation of Rs.5000/- (Rupees five 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.

The complaint is allowed accordingly.  No order as to cost.

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                            -           N.Karunakaran Nair (Witness)

Ext. A1                        -           The original Pass Book

Evidence of the opposite parties:-  Nil

// True Copy //

                                                                                 By Order

                                                                                   Senior Superintendent

To

            Complainant/Opposite Parties/S.F.

Typed by:- k.x/-       

Compared by:-