KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL 1398/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 21.1.2010 PRESENT JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENTSRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER 1. George Thomas, : APPELLANTS S/o Palakkathadathil Thomas, Elanad.P.O., Talappilly Taluk. 2. M.I.Jose, S/o Mangan Iyyappan, West Mangad.P.O.Porkulam, Kunnamkulam. (By Adv.P.K.Ravi sankar) Vs. 1.C.C.Janardhanan, S/o Channat Chandakutty, : RESPONDENTS P.O. Arimboor, Thrissur. 2. Vrindavan Financiers, Kunnamkulam, represented by Managing Partner C.P.Chinnan, S/o Cheeran Peter, Kaniyambal, Kunnamkulam, Thrissusr. 3. C.P.Chinnan, S/o Cheeran Peter, Kaniyambal, Kunnamkulam, Thrissusr. 4. M.A.Gopinathan, S/o Kottamtharayil Achuthan, Njamangad, Vylathur, Chavakkad. 5. C.S.Selvam, W/o Cheruvathur Kochumathew, P.O.Mangad, Pazhanji, Thrissur. 6. T.V.Thomas, S/o Varghese, Thekkekara House, Main Rad, Kunnamkulam. JUDGMENT JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties 4 and 5 in OP.1141/99 in the file of CDRF, Thrissur. Opposite parties 7 in number including the 1st opposite party firm is under orders to pay 30,000/- with interest at 12% from 30.10.96. and also to pay Rs.250/- as cost. 2.It is the case of the complainant that he deposited an amount of Rs.30,000/- in fixed deposit with the 1st opposite party firm for the period of 2 years on condition that the amount will be repaid on maturity with 12% interest. Subsequently the amount was not paid. 3. Except opposite parties 4 and 5, the rest stood ex parte. 4.Opposite parties 4 and 5 filed separate versions contending that the complainant and opposite parties 2 and 3 have colluded together and forged the fixed deposit receipts. According to them the establishment has been dissolved on 5.7.99 and OS 81/2000 is pending at Sub Court, Thrissur for settlement of accounts. It is also contended that from 29.7.95 the firm stands closed. 5. The evidence adduced consisted of the affidavits of the complainant and opposite parties 4 and 5; Exts.P1 to P2 and R1 to R7. 6. There was no representation for the respondent/complainant. 7. It is the contention of the appellants that on the alleged date of issuance of FD receipts the firm was virtually not in existence and that the FD receipt is a fabricated one and the result of collusion in between the complainant, 2nd opposite party Managing partner and 3rd opposite party. It is submitted that the opposite parties could not get sufficient opportunity before the Forum to adduce evidence. It is submitted that a number of other cases were also filed on the basis of forged fixed deposit receipts. The appellants have also produced judgment in another matter on similar facts wherein the complaint was dismissed with cost to the opposite parties ordered to be paid by the complainant. The above order of the Forum is not directly relevant in the present matter. The appellant have contended that they could not adduce proper evidence in the matter and sought for an opportunity. It appears to us that the matter required further consideration. In the circumstances order of the Forum is set aside and remitted back to the Forum. The Forum will issue notice to the complainant and dispose of the matter on merits. The case stands posted before the Forum on 17.3.2010. Office is directed to forward the copy of this order to the Forum urgently. JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER ps |
