Kerala

StateCommission

CC/13/30

MARIYAMMA GEORGE - Complainant(s)

Versus

JOHN C.P - Opp.Party(s)

CS RAJMOHAN

28 Aug 2014

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
 
Complaint Case No. CC/13/30
 
1. MARIYAMMA GEORGE
SAMUEL, AMBYIL, CHENGANNUR, ALP
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. JOHN C.P
CHANDRAVIRUTHIL HOUSE, KULAKKADU, THIRUVALLA,PTA
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'ABLE MR. JUSTICE SRI P.Q.BARKATH ALI PRESIDENT
  SRI. V. V. JOSE MEMBER
 
For the Complainant:
For the Opp. Party:
ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION SISUVIHARLANE VAZHUTHACAUD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

CC.NO.30/13

JUDGMENT DATED : 28.08.2014

PRESENT

 

JUSTICE SHRI.P.Q.BARKATH ALI   : PRESIDENT

SRI.V.V.JOSE                                             : MEMBER

 

 

1. Mariyamma George,

W/o.George, Samuel,

Ambyil, Punthala.P.O

Venmoney, Chengannur,

Alappuzha,

Kerala – 689509

 

2. Sam George,

S/o.George Samuel,

Ambyil, Punthala.P.O

Venmoney, Chengannur,                                           COMPLAINANTS

Alappuzha,

Kerala – 689509

 

3. Susan George,

S/o.George Samuel,

Ambyil, Punthala.P.O

Venmoney, Chengannur,

Alappuzha,

Kerala – 689509

(Through authorized agent,

First complainant mother)

 

(By Adv.C.S.Rajmohan &

Adv.S.Sunil Narayanan)

 

Vs.

 

1. Mr.John.C.P

Chandraviruthil house,

Kulakkad, Thiruvalla,

Pathanamthitta,

Pin – 689 101

The Managing Partner,

Representing CV Philippose and

Sons Cross Junction,

Thiruvalla, Pathanamthitta

 

2. Mrs.Anitha C.John,                                                OPPOSITE PARTIES

W/o. C.P.John,

Chandraviruthil house,

Kulakkad, Thiruvalla,

Pathanamthitta,

Pin – 689 101

The Managing Partner,

Representing CV Philippose and

Sons Cross Junction,

Thiruvalla, Pathanamthitta

 

JUDGMENT

SRI.V.V.JOSE         : MEMBER

            This complaint is filed under section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. The complainants are legal heirs of Late Sri.George Samuel. The complainants allege that Late Sri.George Samuel made fixed deposit with the opposite parties as per receipt No.CVPD/A/01022 dated 12.11.09 for one year. The assured rate of interest was 15% per annum. George Samuel died on 12.11.2010. The opposite parties are doing finance business and accepting deposits in the name and style “C.V.Philipose and Sons “.

            2.        The complainants demanded back the deposit on 01.01.2011 after the death of George Samuel. Even though the opposite parties assured to pay back the amount by one month, they did not pay and also the first opposite party is keeping away from his office at Thiruvalla. The opposite parties are liable to pay back the amount of Rs.881335/- with interest amounting to Rs.542,020/-, that is the interest up to 12.11.2012 and further interest till realization.

            3.        According to complainants the act of opposite parties of not paying the deposit with interest is unfair trade practice and deficiency in service, which entitle the complainants for compensation.

            4.        On 04.03.2013 the complainants approached the office of opposite parties and came to know that the first opposite party has gone abroad.

            5.        The complaint is filed with a prayer to direct the opposite party to pay back Rs.881335/- and 15% interest amounting to Rs.542020/- from 12.11.2009 to 12.11.2012 and further interest till realization. Rs.7,00,000/- is sought to be awarded as compensation for the agony and hardships suffered by the complainants.

            6.        After admission notice was sent to the opposite parties. The same was returned with endorsement “addressee left “. The commission ordered for substitute service against opposite parties.

            7.        After production of paper publication in “Kerala Kaumudi ” Daily dated 19.06.2014, the opposite parties were called absent and both were set exparte.

            8. Complainants filed proof affidavit and marked three documents Ext. A1 to A3.

            The following issues were framed

  1. Whether the complainants is entitled for the prayers sought and
  2. Relief and cost

Issue I and II

9.        For the sake of convenience both issues were considered together. The case of the complainant is that they are the legal heirs of deceased George Samuel who made a deposit with the opposite party amounting to Rs.881335/- on 12.11.2009 which is repayable after 12 months. The complainant’s case is that the interest offered is 15%. Complainant also alleged that no interest is paid from the very inception. Complainant states that they are entitled compensation apart from interest amounting to Rs.70,0000/-. The interest is calculated as Rs.542020/- from 12.11.2009 to 12.11.2012. They are entitled to Rs.2123355/- and further interest, adding all the prayers together.

            10.      To support of the claim, the complainants have produced three documents which were marked as Ext.A1- Ext.A3 . Ext.A1 is the photo copy of the alleged deposit receipt. Ext.A2 is the authorisation of the third complainant in favour of first complainant. Ext.A3 is the photo copy of the death certificate of the defacto depositor. George Samuel. Since the opposite parties are exparte their contentions are not known. However, we have carefully gone through the pleadings and proof produced.

            11.      At the outset it appears that the complaint is filed in this commission by stretching the reliefs to the sky high level to confer jurisdiction of this commission. In fact, from the available facts it appears that the reliefs are any stretch of imagination, could not exceed the limits prescribed for a District Forum. However, since the complaint is entertained and evidence is adduced we are inclined to find that the complaint is to be decided by this commission itself.

            12.      We find that the complainant’s allegations are vague and wild. In the complaint the rate of interest of the deposit assured is stated as 15%. But Ext.A1 would show that the rate of interest is only 12%. In the complaint it is stated that the depositor expired on 12.11.2010 but Ext.A3 the death certificate shows that the date of death is 14.11.2012. In para three of the complaint the complainants alleged that after the death of George Samuel they demaned back the deposit on01.01.2011. These pleadings are apparently erroneous, we have considered the facts and evidence with due care Ext.A1 shows the interest is payable monthly. The complainants alleged that the interest is due from the very inception. The deposit matured on 12.11.2010. But the complainant would allege that they demanded the deposit only on 01.11.2011. Naturally it is to be presumed that the interest payment was not irregular at lest some where near the date of such demand. However, no material is available before this commission regarding interest payment. The rate of interest claim is 15%. As per the contract seen in Ext.A1, is only to pay interest at 12%. Complainants are eligible the rate of interest at 12% to  as against the claims of 15% . Again the claim of interest from the date of deposit till payment at agreed rate is whether actually due or not is a matter of fact for which the opposite parties are entitled to get credit for such interest that they have paid to the complainant if any. Since it is a money transaction and complainants are entitle to the contracted rate of interest. The complaints are not entitled to any compensation according to us. The claims of compensation of Rs.700,000/- is apparently not eligible to be granted to the complainants. However the complainants are entitled to get the cost of this proceedings which we fix Rs.10,000/-.

13.      We therefore allow the complaint partly directing the opposite parties to return the deposit amount of Rs.881335/- together with 12% interest from the date of deposit till payment. The opposite parties are also directed to pay the cost of this proceedings amounting Rs.10,000/.

 

14.      We make it clear that the original of Ext.A1 receipt shall be returned to the opposite parties duly discharging and the opposite parties are entitled to deduct the interest if any paid during the deposit period.

            In the result, the complaint is partly allowed directing the opposite parties to return the deposit amount of Rs.881335/- together with 12% interest from the date of deposit till payment. The opposite parties are also directed to pay the cost of this proceedings amounting to Rs.10,000/-. Complainants shall return the original of deposit receipt duly discharged. The opposite parties can deduct the interest if any paid during the deposit period.

V.V.JOSE      : MEMBER

 

JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI            : PRESIDENT

List of documents

Ext.A1          - True copy of fixed deposit receipt

Ext.A2          - Original authorization for 3rd complainant

Ext.A3          - Copy of death certificate

Be/

 

 

 

 

KERALA STATE

CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION

SISUVIHARLANE

VAZHUTHACAUD

 THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 

CC.NO.30/13

JUDGMENT

 DATED : 28.08.2014

 

                                                                                                Be/

 
 
[HON'ABLE MR. JUSTICE SRI P.Q.BARKATH ALI]
PRESIDENT
 
[ SRI. V. V. JOSE]
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.