`KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSALCOMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
APPEAL NO. 398/2004
JUDGMENT
DATED 22.12.2010
PRESENT:-
JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT
SHRI. M.K. ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER
APPELLANTS
1. Alphonsa Kudumba Kshema Trust,
P.O. Kottappuram,
Kasthuri valavu- 680677
Represented by President.
2. President, Alphonsa Kudumba kshema Trust,
K.O. Antony,
Kaipassery House P.O., Kottappuram,
Kasthuri valavu, Kodungallur.
3. Secretary, Alphonsa Kudumba Kshema Trust,
P.C. Rubinas, Punnessery house,
P.O. Kodungallur,
Elthuruth, Undekadavu.
4. Tresurer, Alphonsa Kudumba Kshema Trust,
V.P. Thomas, Venganath House,
P.O. Kodungallur, Elthuruth, Undekadavu.
(Rep. by Adv. Sri. M. Shaju Purushothaman)
Vs
RESPONDENT
George. T.C. Thekkaneth House,
P.O. Anapuzha, Kodungallur – 680 667
(Rep. by Adv. Sri. K.A. Noushad)
JUDGMENT
SHRI. M.K. ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER
This appeal prefers from the order passed by the CDRF, Thrissur in O.P. No. 432/2003 order dated 27.4.2004. The appellants are the opposite parties and the respondent is the complainant in the above said O.P respectively. The appellant prefers this appeal from the impugned order passed by the Forum below directed the opposite parties to pay Rs. 15,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of investment namely 20.1.2001 till realization and also to pay Rs. 1,000/- as cost.
In brief the complainant deposited Rs. 15,000/- on 21.1.2001 in the first opposite parties concern and at the time of the deposit was given an assurance that the complainant would get interest @ 18% per annum and the second opposite party said that he was the president and the 3rd opposite party as the secretary and the 4th opposite party as the treasurer of the first opposite party institution. After two years of the deposit of this amount the complainant approached the Director’s office and also the second opposite party and 4th opposite party for that amount But they used to protract without paying under one pretext or the other. He issued a lawyer notice. But the opposite parties replied stating false claims.
Hence this complainant prayed that the opposite parties should be directed to pay to the complainant Rs. 15,000/- the amount of deposit with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of deposit Rs. 3,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony etc.
The opposite parties contented in their version that the complainant is not a consumer. But they admitted the deposit. They contented that they never promised to pay the amount with interest @ 18% per annum they contented that their institution is a charitable society and the complainant is a member in this society. The real fact is that for the construction of a building for the society they purchased one cent land. They decided to construct a building by raising the funds from the members of the society. As a part of this decision the complainant also give Rs. 1,000/- as a contribution on different occasion. Ten out of the total members contributed money amounting to Rs. 15,000/- per each member. The opposite parties contented that he contributed 15,000/- on that account. The main contention is that it is a charitable society and the complainant paid this amount not for any service even though he is also a member of the society.
The Forum below raised 3 points for consideration. The petition produced on Ext. P1 , Deposit Receipt and the opposite parties produced 8 documents. It is marked as Ext. R1 to R8.
The Forum below discussed the entire facts and circumstances and took a view that the complainant’s money is not a contribution but a deposit. The Forum below took the Ext. P1 as a piece of evidence to take this view and allowed the complaint.
The appellant preferred this appeal from the above impugned order passed by the Forum below. On this day this appeal came before the Commission for final hearing. The Counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that on the grounds of appeal memorandum that order of the Forum below is illegal and not in accordance with the provisions of law and evidence. He filed his argument note. His main contention is that the complainant is not a consumer as per the Consumer Protection Act. He is only a member of the Charitable Society run by the opposite parties which is not for profit but for service. The members of the society included the complainant.
We perused the entire case records and heard in detail. But we are of the view that Ext. P1 is neither a contribution nor a donation. It is a deposit receipt. The question which arises here is whether the opposite parties accepted deposit instead of donation or contribution? The Forum below mainly sticks on this Ext. A1 alone to allow the complaint. But the Forum below did not analyze each and every circumstances of this case. As per the facts and circumstances of the case, the complainant cannot be considered as consumer and is not entitled to get back the deposit with interest of 18% and cost compensation. We carefully analyzed each and every evidence, facts and circumstances of this case and has taken a view that the Ext. P1 document is not sufficient to pass an order against the appellant/opposite parties. There is no doubt at all that it is a charitable institution formed as a ‘Kudumbayoga’. The entire incidents have taken place due to some ideological conflict between the complainant and the opposite parties. But we are of the view that the order passed by the Forum below is not legally sustainable and not accordance with the law and evidence. It is nothing but an emotional order. The complainant did not adduce sufficient evidence to substantiate his case. Hence the appellant succeeded in the appeal and we allowed this appeal. They need not pay anything to the complainant.
In the result, this appeal is disposed according to the above finding. The order of the lower Forum is quashed. Both parties are directed to suffer their own respective costs. Points of the appeal discussed one by one and answered accordingly.
M.K. ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER
JUSTICE K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT
