IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ALAPPUZHA
Wednesday the 28th day of May, 2022.
Filed on 02.09.2021
Present
- Sri.S.Santhosh Kumar. BSc.,LL.B (President )
- Smt. Sholy.P.R .B.A, LLB (Member)
In
CC/No.183/2021
between
Complainants:- Opposite party:-
1. Sri. Eapen Monichan 1. Grihachand Nidhi Ltd
Kattezham Bino Bhavan CINU 65923TZ2015PLCO21224
Champakulam.P.O, Alappuzha Regd. Office Old No. 224,
Pin 688505 New No.104, Vivekananda Road
Ramnagar, Coimbatore 641009
2. Lovelymol Monichan,
Kattezham Bino Bhavan 2. Girhachand Nidhi Ltd
Champakulam.P.O, Alappuzha 318 AB, NSR Road
Sai baba Colony, Coimbatore
(Party in person) Pin- 641011.
3.. Smt. Komala Unnikrishnan,
Director, Grihachand Nidhi Ltd
318 AB NSR Road
Sai baba Colony, Coimbatore
4 & 5. Smt. Komala Unnikrishnan
Director, Grihachand Nidhi Ltd
Mullasseril House, Chatannapuzha
Kilivayal, Choorakkodu.P.O,Adoor
6&7. Satheeshchandra RamachandranPillai
Director,Grihachand Nidhi Ltd
Ampilimuttam, Parakkuttam.P.o
Adoor.691551
8&9. Sreemathyapillai Parameswaran
Director, Grihachand Nidhi Ltd.
Sankaramangalath, Kattachira
Pallickal.P.o, Bharanikkavu
Pin 690503
10&11. Vijayalakshmi Parayil Narayanapilai
Director, Grihachand Nidhi Ltd
Nilackal House , Pennukkara.P.O
Ala(Part), Alappuzha -689520
12&13. Vimala Radhakrishnan Nair,
Director, Grihachand Nidhi Ltd
Abhiramam Vazhuvady, Maveliakara
Puthyakavu, Alappuzha-690102
14&15 Gopalakrishnan Kuttappan
Director, Grihachad Nidhi Ltd
Koyyattu House, Mangaram
Pandalam, Pathanamthitta-698501
16&17 Muraleedharan pillai
Director, Grihachand Nidhi Ltd
Marukara House, Poovathur.P.O
Koipuram, Pathanamthitta-689531
18. Vijayalakshmi Jayakumar
Branch Manager
Kerala Housing Finance ltd
Allepey Branch, 1st Floor,
M.M. Building, South of Kallupalam
Alappuzha-688011
19. Vijayalakshmi Jayakumar
Aayriappally House, Muthukulam
South Mammood, Junction
Kareelakulangara Alappuzha
(Adv. R.Sankaran kutty for 18&19)
20. The Sub Inspector of Police
Alleppy South
(Adv Mujeeb Rahman for 8 to 13)
O R D E R
SMT. P.R SHOLY (MEMBER)
Complaint filed u/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019
1. Complainant case briefly stated is as follows:-
1st complainant is gulf returnee and 2nd complainant is his wife. Opposite parties are related to the company, Grihachand Nidhi Ltd. After retuned the 1st complainant from abroad both the complainants were of view that the amount saved from abroad is to be spent only by careful planning for achieving their future plans and to meet their day to day bread.
2. While so, during June 2016 the Alleppy branch manager of Kerala Housing Finance Ltd. Smt. Vijayalakshmi visited their house and gave detailed description of the various schemes of the company, its attractive features, deposit schemes, the attractive interest rates more than the prevailing bank rates etc. she also assured that the deposit amount will be duly returned on the date of maturity by the company with 13% interest. She also stated that whenever the complaint is in need of releasing the deposits, they will be released after giving the interest up to date.
3. The manager further informed that the company is a public incorporated company, incorporated on 23/3/2015. It is classified as a non government company and is registered at the Registrar of companies Coimbatore. Its authorized share capital is Rs. 75 crores and its paid up capital is Rs. 40 crores. Moreover the group includes financial intermediation other than the conducted by monetary institutions. The manager also showing copies relating to the above and persuaded to start accounts in the name of the complainants. The manager further informed that the office of Grihachand Nidhi functions along with the office of Kerala Housing Finance Ltd, since it is a part of Kerala Housing Finance and hence she is dealing in charge of that office also.
4. Attracted by the words of the manager, lured by the offer of attractive interest rates of 13% monthly interest, the complainants agreed to open accounts in their names. Accordingly account No.136 was opened in the name of 1st complainant with monthly instalment @ Rs. 2000/- and account no.137 was opened in the name of 2nd complainant with monthly instalment being Rs.3000/- at the office of Kerala Housing Finance Ltd. Alappey branch on 21/6/2017.
5. Subsequently on 15/10/2017 the manager informed the complainants over phone about the revised interest rate of 14% and accordingly the complainants were opened accounts having number 211 in the name of 1st complainant and account no.209 in the name of 2nd complainant on 21/10/2017 with monthly instalment @ Rs.2000 and Rs.2700/- respectively. On 20/10/2017 they have opened account having no.210 in the name of 2nd complainant with monthly instalment being Rs.3000/-. With all the above accounts the complainants remitted a total amount of Rs.2,02,800/- to the opposite party company. However contrary to the promises and offers, Kerala Housing Finance Ltd stopped paying interest to the complainants from January 2019 and also failed to release the matured deposit. The said acts of the Kerala Housing Finance Ltd. were a great shock to the complainants and they feared that this may happen with the amount deposited by them with the opposite parties, Grihachand Nidhi.
6. On enquiry, the complainants came to know certain illegal acts of the Kerala Housing Finance Ltd and they further understood that there is something illegal in the functioning of opposite parties. The complainants, therefore, became convinced that by making false representations and with the dis honest words, they have been cheated by the company and smt. Vijayalekshmi, the manager has been diverting the collection for their own benefits and thereby grained unlawful gain. Meanwhile the complainants approached the manager on several occasion with other depositors, and as a result, the manager has given them a written agreement in stamp paper worth Rs.200/- on 4/1/2019 agreeing to refund all amounts within 6 months. However , there was no positive result, subsequently the complainants along with other depositors submitted complaints before different authorities for redressal of their grievances, but all are failed. Hence this complaint seeking an order to refund Rs.2,02,800/- as per the bonds along with arrear of interest Rs.96,528/-, Rs.2 lakhs for denying the amount till date, Rs.10 lakhs as compensation and Rs.2 lakhs as cost of the proceedings.
7. In response to the complaint the opposite parties No.6,7to 13, 18 and 19 are filed version others remained exparte.
8. Version of opposite party No. 6 and 7 as follows:-
The complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. Opposite parties No.6 and 7 are one and the same person. This opposite party is not director of 1st opposite party after 8/8/2017 and hence complainants have no cause of action against this opposite party and this opposite party has not connection whatsoever with the 1st opposite party after 8/8/2017. In the above premises complainants are not consumers of this opposite party.
9. The M/s Grihachand Nidhi Ltd. is a company limited by shares, this opposite party is not at all responsible to any extent as alleged by the complainant. Since this opposite party has left the directorship of the 1st opposite party as early as 8/8/2017 this complaint is hopelessly barred by law of limitation because the same is filed after 2years of the cessation of directorship of this opposite party. This opposite party is not liable to the transaction between the complainants and 1st opposite party made on 16/2/2018, 24/12/2018, 20/1/2017 and 21/10/2017.
10. This opposite party is not aware of the transactions as alleged in the complaint and hence the complaint may be dismissed with cost of this opposite party.
11. Version of the Opposite parties 8 to 13 as follows:-
The complaint is not maintainable. These opposite parties are seized to be the Directors of 1st opposite party and these opposite parties are not related to 1st opposite party. These opposite parties do not have any knowledge or connivance regarding the allegations leveled against the opposite parties in the complaint.
12. Since these opposite parties do not hold office in official capacity as alleged in the complaint they are not proper or necessary parties to the complaint. These opposite parties have not been in charge of the day to day affairs of the 1st and 2nd opposite party at any point of time to have any interaction with the complainants in this case. There has not been any consumer service provider relationship between the complainants and these opposite parties. Hence the complaint to be dismissed with cost.
13. Version of opposite parties 18 and 19 as follows:-
The complaint is not maintainable either in law of on facts. There is no consumer service provider relationship between this opposite parties and complainants. These opposite party has no connection with the transactions made between with complainants and 1st opposite party. The relation between the 1st opposite party and this opposite party is only the employer-employee relation. Hence this opposite party is not liable to be proceeded with personally as she was only an employee of 1st opposite party. No assurance was ever given by this opposite party to the complainants that the 1st opposite party company is the institution under National Housing Finance and Kerala Government.
14. Complaint is barred by limitation. The alleged deposit receipts are created by fraud and having no consideration. This opposite party specifically denied the allegation leveled against her in the complaint that base on the representation of this opposite party the complainants happened to deposit the alleged amount and there is no need to describe the constitution and working of Kerala Housing Finance Ltd to the complainants. This opposite party denied the execution of agreement regarding the transaction. It was happened by compelling this opposite party to sign a blank stamp paper valued Rs. 200/-by the complainants along with other depositions. This opposite party has not assured to return the amount to anyone. This opposite party has pleaded that she is not liable to the alleged claim and she is incorporated on the party array only to cause annoyance to her and thus prayed for dismissal of the complaint as against her.
15. On the above pleadings the points raised for consideration are:-
1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get reliefs sought for in the complaint?
3. Whether all the opposite parties are liable for the disputed transactions?
2. Reliefs and cost?
16. Evidence in this case consists oral evidence of PW1 and Ext.A1 to A9 on the side of complainants and Ext.B1 on the side of contesting opposite parties 6 and 7.
17. Point No.1 to 3:-
In this case opposite parties 6 and 7 are one and the same. Opposite parties 17 and 18 are also one and the same. Opposite parties 8 and 9 are seen one and the same, opposite parties 10 and 11 are one and same and opposite parties 12 and 13 are one and the same. These opposite parties are contested the case by filing version others are remained exparte.
18. PW1, the 1st complainant filed an affidavit in tune with the complaint and got marked Ext.A1 to A9. During cross examination by learned counsel appearing for opposite parties 6 and 7 marked Ext.B1.
19. Ext.A1 to A5 are the pass book issued by 1st opposite party to the complainant. On perusal of Ext.A1 to A5 passbook it revealed that the complainants had deposited a total amount of Rs.2,02,800/- in which 1st complainant deposited Rs. 54,000/- and 2nd complainant deposited Rs1,48,800/9 by monthly payment to the 1st opposite party company.
20. According to the complainants they had opened Ext.A1 to A5 accounts with 1st opposite party as assured and promised by the 18th opposite party, the manager of Kerala Housing Finance Limited that the deposited amount will be returned with interest as and when demanded. However contrary to the promises and offers, the Kerala Housing Finance stopped paying interest to the complainants from January 2019 and the company failed to release the deposit which got matured. On fearing that this may happen with the amount deposited with 1st opposite party by Ext.A1 to A5 the complainants demanded the amount covered under Ext.A1 to A5, but no positive results. Hence filed this complaint.
21. Opposite parties 6 and 7 are one and the same who mainly contented that he was not a director of 1st opposite party at the time of transactions made by the complainants with respect to Ext.A1 to A6, hence he has no liability towards the complainants in that count. In the preliminary hearing of the same in IA NO. 409/2021. We found directorship of this opposite party during some transactions of the Ext.A1 to A5. Accordingly opposite party No. 6 cannot evade from the liability in connection with Ext.A1 to A5.
22. As contented by 18th and 19th opposite party, who are also one and the same, the Jural relationship of debtor and creditor is between the complainant and 1st opposite party and which seems from ExtA1 to A5. The amount deposited by the complainants with the 1st opposite party. The said fact is admitted by PW1 which he was cross examined by the counsel appearing for the 18th opposite party. More over the complainants could not brought into evidence the link between the 18th opposite party and 1st opposite party company with regard to the transaction of Ext.A1 to A5. The said circumstance debars the complainants raising contention that upon the instigation of 18th opposite party the complainants deposited the amount covered under Ext.A1 to A5. The complainants specifically stated that the 18th opposite party is a branch manager of Kerala Housing Finance Ltd. being a staff of the said company the 18th opposite party is not liable to discharge the liability of Grihachand Nidhi. Ltd. Hence based on the pleadings and evidence tendered in the case, 18th opposite party is not liable to the grievance alleged by the complainants, but the 1st opposite party being a financial institution incorporated as per the provisions of the companies Act and other opposite parties 3,6,8,10,12, 14, and 16 are its Managing Director and directors, hence they are bound to abide by the terms and conditions assured by them. But they have committed breach of promise as well as deficiency in service towards the complainants. Therefore opposite parties 3,6,8,10,12,14 and 16 are jointly & severally liable to discharge the liability and to pay compensation to the complainants. According to Ext.A1 to A5 the complainants are entitled to recover Rs.2,02,800/-.
23. Point No. 4:-
In the result the complaint stands allowed in part in the following terms.
a) Opposite parties 3,6,8,10,12,14&16 are jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.2,02,800/- (Rupees Two lakh two thousand and eight hundred only) to the complainants.
b) Opposite parties 3,6,8,10,12,14&16 are jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.20,000/-(Rupees Twenty thousand only) as compensation to the complainants .
c) Opposite parties 3,6,8,10,12,14&16 are jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.1000/-(Rupees Thousand only) each as litigation cost to the complainants.
The order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him corrected by me and pronounced in open Commission on this the 28th day of May, 2022.
Sd/-Smt. Sholy.P.R(Member)
Sd/-Sri.S.Santhosh Kumar(President)
Appendix:-Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - Eapen Monichan (Complainant)
Ext.A1 to A5 - Pass book
Ext.A6 - Assurance dtd. 5/7/2019
Ext.A7 - Assurance Dtd. 7/7/2019
Ext. A8 - Agreement
Ext.A9 - Agreement
Evidence of the opposite parties:-
Ext.B1 - Company master Data
///True Copy ///
To
Complainant/Oppo. party/S.F.
By Order
Assistant Registrar
Typed by:- Br/-
Compared by:-
