SMT. RAVI SUSHA: PRESIDENT

Complainant has filed this complaint U/s 12 of consumer Protection Act1986, seeking to get on order directing opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- to the complainant along with interest and Rs.25,000 towards compensation and cost to the complainant.

            Brief facts of the case are that the complainant is an agriculturist.  The OPs are the director Board member of Ulickal Panchayath Indira Priyadarsini Vanitha Co-operative society, having office at Ulikkal.  The complainant has deposited Rs.1,20,000/- in the Ulickal Panchayath Indira Priyadarsini Vanitha Co-operative society on 26/11/2017 as fixed deposit.  The OP society is a co-operative society.  The management of society canvassed and the complainant deposited and the deposit was for a period of one month and after the period of one month and the rate of interest payable is 6% per annum.   After the period of one month the complainant made so many demand for release of the amount deposited, but the society refused the withdrawal of the amount to the complainant.  Finally the complainant was constrained to issue registered notice dated 07/06/2018 to 1^st OP and demanded refund of the said amount.  Though the 1^st OP acknowledged the said letter on 12/06/2018 the lawful demand made in the said notice was not complied.  There after the complainant has caused to issue a registered notice on 23/07/2018 demanding the aforesaid amount with interest to 1^st OP.  1^st OP duly acknowledged the said notice on 25/07/2018 whereas so far no amount is paid to the complaint nor any reply is sent.  After collecting deposits from complainant and member of general public the respondents have misappropriated the amounts collected from the complainant and others.  The complainant suffered much mental pain and agony in connection with non refund of deposit received from the complainant. It is submitted that there is grave deficiency of service on the part of the OPs. Hence this complaint.

            Out of 7 OPs, OPs 3,5 and 6, contest the case by filing written version and adduced evidence.  Other OPs1,2 and 4 remind absent without contesting the case.  Hence OPs1,2 and 4 were declared as ex-parte. The contentions in the version of OPs3,5, and 6 are more or less same.  It is stated in their version that the alleged dispute is governed by Kerala co-operative societies Act and if the complainant has any grievance he had to approach the authorities/ tribunals provided U/s.69 of Kerala co-operative societies Act. This OP is/was not a director board member of Ulickal Panchayath Indira Priyadarsini Vanitha co-operative Society.  It is true that the 1^st OP is the present President of the said society.  This OP is not aware of the further allegations that management committee of Ulickal Panchayath Indira Priyadarsini Vanitha co-operative Society canvassed FD from and accordingly complainant deposited a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- before the Ulickal Panchayath Indira Priyadarsini Vanitha Co-operative society.  On 26/11/2017 vide fixed deposit No.613.  The deposit was for a period of one month and after the period of one month and the rate of interest payable is 6% per annum.  Since these OPs were not part of the said society and its managing committee or director board, these OP is not aware whether the complainant has deposited any amount with the said society.  Further the complainant had not mad e any demand to this OP and not aware of the notices issued to the 1^st OP by the complainant.  It is submitted that this OP is only a member of above said society due to the insistence of then President Lissy Thomas who issued the membership at this OP’s residence.  It is submitted that this OP never contested in election to the post of director board member of the above said society and never signed the nomination paper any affidavit for contesting the election and never signed in the minute’s book.  Hence this OP has no connection with day to day affairs and financial dealings and management of the society.  This OP had no connection with the illegal activities done by Grace George (1^st OP).  It is submitted that there is no deficiency of service as alleged in the complaint.  It is stated that an enquiry was conducted by Co-operative Societies joint Registrar (General) Kannur about the maladministration of the society.  This OP appeared before him and a statement was submitted.  After a due enquiry the joint registrar discharged this OP.  Hence, prayed for the dismissal of the complaint against OP No.3.

            At the time of evidence complainant has taken steps to the co-operative joint registrar (General), Kannur to produce the file relating Ulickal Panchayath Indira Priyadarsini Vanitha co-operative Society.  As per that all the documents pertaining to the society in dispute was produced.

            The complainant has filed his proof affidavit and has been examined as Pw1.  `     A1 to A7 were marked.  The file submitted by the joint registrar is marked as Ext.X1 series, X1(a) to (d).  The joint registrar was also examined as Pw2.  Dw1 and 2 were subject to cross-examination by OPs 3,5 and 6.  On the side of OP3 has filed his chief-affidavit and documents.  She was examined as Dw1 marked Ext.B1 to B6. The brother of OP No.5 was examined as Dw2 and her passport was marked as Ext.B7(with objection).  ON the side of OP the liquidator (Assistant Registrar General) Kannur, was examined as Dw3.  Dws 1 to 3 were cross examination or the complainant.  After that the learned counsel of complainant made oral argument and the learned counsel of OPs 3,5 and 6 filed written argument note.

            A perusal of the documents show that, (Ext.A1) the complainant has deposited Rs.1,20,000/- in the Ulickal Panchayath Indira Priyadarsini Vanitha Co-operative society on 26/11/2017 as FD.  The OP society is a co-operative society.  Complainant alleged that the management of society canvassed and the complainant deposited and the deposit was for a period of one month and after the period of one month, the complainant made so many demand for release of the amount deposited, but the society refused the withdrawal of the amount to the complainant.  The complainant therefore claimed the refund of the aforesaid amount with interest.  Complainant also claimed Rs.25,000/- towards compensation.  There was no appearance of OPs 1,2 and 4^th  OPs nor the written version in reply to the allegations was submitted.  We, therefore, proceeded ex-parte against OPs 1, 2 and 4.  The 1^st contention of OPs 3, 5 and 6 is that the complaint is not maintainable due to lack of jurisdiction.  OPs contended that as per sec.69 of Kerala co-operative societies Act, the consumer commission does not have jurisdiction to adjudicated the present compliant.  With regard to this point, the Judgment submitted 2011 (i) KLT 573,Evathu service  co-operative bank Ltd Vs Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, The hon’ble High court of Kerala held that as per Sec.3 of Consumer Protection Act, the complaint against co-operative societies are maintainable before consumer commission.

            The another contention of OPs 3,5 and 6 are that these OPs have no legal liability in this case.  Allegation in complaint is only against the managing committee as a whole.  There is not any specific contention in complaint as well as in the evidence adduced by Pw1, pertaining to the culpability of any OPs rather than they are the board members of society.  OPs further submits that while in cross examination specific question is being asked to the complainant.  നിങ്ങൾ  ഓപ്പോസിറ്റ് പാർട്ടിക്കെതിരെ കേസ് കൊടുത്തത് അവർ പ്രീയദർശിനി വനിതാ കോ-ഓപ്പറേറ്റീവ് സഹകരണ സംഘത്തിെൻറ ഡയറക്ടർ ബോർഡ് അംഗങ്ങൾ ആയതുകൊണ്ടാണ്? അതെ. Further for the question നിങ്ങൾ വനിതാ സഹകരണ സംഘത്തിൽ പണം നിക്ഷേപിക്കാൻ എന്താണ് കാരണം.  സൊസൈറ്റിയുടെ പ്രസിഡൻറിെൻറ ഭർത്താവ് എെൻറ സുഹൃത്താണ്.  അയാൾ ആവശ്യപ്പെട്ട പ്രകാരമാണ് ഞാൻ പണം നിക്ഷേപിച്ചത്. മറ്റ് ഡയറക്ടർ ബോർഡ് അംഗങ്ങൾ പണം നിക്ഷേപിക്കാൻ ആവശ്യപ്പെട്ടരുന്നോ? ഇല്ല.  Learned counsel of OPs further submitted that  from this answer it is very clear that the Ops do not have any roll in persuading the complainant to make a deposit in the society.  Further pertaining to the          non-repayment of FD, the complainant sent notice twice, only to OP No.1.  OP’s learned counsel submitted that it is very clearly reveals that the complainant is well aware that OPNo.1  is solely responsible for paying back the FD of him.

            On perusal of Ext.X1, X1 (a) to d and Ext.B1 B5 and B6 and also from the deposition of Dw3 the liquidator, Assistant Registrar(General) office, that there was misappropriation of money was  happened in the OP society ie Ulikal Indira Priyadarsini Vanitha Co-operative Priyadarsini Vanitha C-operative Society NO.1603 of about 21637413, and out of which OP NO.1, the president Smt.Grace George during the period from 19/11/2017 to 25/10/2018 is liable for  Rs.15,10,000 and Mrs Lissy Thomas, chief promoter and was the president is liable to pay Rs.2,01,27,443.  The said orders were declared by liquidator appointed as per Sec.71 of Co-operative Act.  She was examined as Dw3.  During the evidence, she has deposed in tune of Ext.B1, B5 and B6.

            Hence from the evidence documentary as well as oral, we are of the view that OPs 2 to 7 are not liable to pay the deposits made by public persons including  the complainant to the Ulikkal Panchayath Indira Priyadarsini Vanitha co-operative  society No.C1603 during the period 2017-18.  Hence as per the documents as mentioned above we also exonerate OPs 2 to 7 from the liability as alleged by the complainant.   Complainant failed to prove that OPs 2 to 7 made canvas to the complainant for depositing the amount in the society and also even failed to establish that other OPs than OP1, elected in the Director Board of the society by submitting nomination etc.  Further there is no documents to show that OPs 2 to 7 has attended board meeting and signed in the minutes.

            Hence considering the entire facts and circumstances as stated above and from the available documents before us we are of the view that there is deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1.  So OP1 is liable to repay the deposited amount to the complainant.

            In the result, complaint is allowed in part.  Opposite party No.1 is directed to pay Rs.1,20,000/- to the complainant with interest @7% per annum from 26/11/2017 till realization.  Opposite party No.1 is further directed to pay Rs.20,000/- towards compensation and Rs.5000/- towards cost of the proceedings  of this case.  Opposite party No.1 shall comply order within one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.  Failing which, the awarded amount except the cost, carries interest @ 12% per annum from 26/11/2017 till realization.  Complainant is at liberty to execute the order as per the provision in Consumer Protection Act 2019.

Exts.

A1-Photo copy of FD Receipt

A2-True copy of notice sent to the OPs

A3-Acknowledgment card

A4-Lawyer notice

A5-Acknowledgment card signed by OP1

A6-Passbook issued by Panjab National bank

A7-Certificate issued by co-operative registrar Taliparamba

B1- Order issued by District co-operative Joint Registrar dated 07/11/2019

B2- Complainant filed before Ulikkal Police (subject proof)

B3- Complainant filed before District Police Superintendent (subject proof)

B4- Notice issued by District Registrar (subject to proof)

B5- Copy of the order of liquidator (subject to proof)

B6- Contributory order by the liquidator (subject proof)

B7- Copy of passport

Pw1-Complainant

Pw2- Ramakrishnan V-Witness of complainant

Dw1- OP3

Dw2-PA holder of OP5

Dw3-Jayasree T- Witness of OPs

      Sd/                                                                          Sd/                                                     Sd/

PRESIDENT                                                                   MEMBER                                                   MEMBER

Ravi Susha                                                               Molykutty Mathew                                     Sajeesh K.P

(mnp)

/Forward by order/

Assistant Registrar