SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT) The complainant was the Secretary of the SNDP Branch No.4536 of Maniyarankudy during the period 2003-2006. At the time when his period was terminated, all the accounts of the said branch was promptly transferred to the then Secretary and there was no account was in due at that time. But in the General Body meeting held in July 2007, when the accounts of the year 2006 was produced, it was seen that there was a missing of an amount of Rs.3,222/- in branch’s Nalvazhy Book. The complainant disputed the account at the same time itself. But the Presiding Officer of that General Body meeting gave assurance to the complainant that the records would be verified and a decision would be taken afterwards. But the accounts were not yet verified. Again the accounts of the year 2007 was submitted in March 2008, it was written that there is a due of Rs.3,222/- against the complainant. At that time the complainant requested for reconsideration of the accounts. Then the complainant was constrained to send a notice to the opposite party on 22.03.2008 for requesting to get the copies of the following relevant documents such as the account of Income and expenditure from January 1st 2006 to 31st December 2006, the copy of the daily statement book (Nalvazhi book) in the year 2006 to 2007, copy of the Minutes of the day in which the accounts were transferred to the opposite party, the Income and Expenditure of Micro Finance from June Ist, 2005 to November Ist, 2006 and copy of the monthly accounts of each and every member of the branch. But the opposite party did not receive the notice so it was returned. The complainant is a member of the SNDP branch and regularly paying the monthly fee. So the complainant has the right to get the copy of the documents as per the request and it is a gross deficiency in the part of the opposite party for not supplying the copies. So the complaint is filed for giving a direction to the opposite party for supplying the copy of the relevant documents. 2. The opposite party appeared and filed written version. As per the written version, it is stated that there is no consumer dispute between the complainant and the opposite party. The opposite party has not provided any goods or services or hires any service for consideration to the complainant and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed. The opposite party is the Secretary of the SNDP, Maniyarankudy Branch where not provided any service for consideration to the complainant. In the General Body Meeting of the branch during the year 2007 was held on 29.07.2007, in the report submitted by the Secretary, it was stated that the former Secretary who is the complainant had omitted to mention cash receipt amounting to Rs.3,222/ in branch Nalvazhy during the year 2006. Annual General Body meeting during the year 2008 was held on 9.03.2008. In the General body previous statement of the accounts were published. In the report also it is stated that the complainant owes Rs.3,222/- to the branch. It is shown as a personal debt of the complainant towards the Maniyarankudy branch. It is further admitted that during the General Body meeting of the branch, a report was submitted and it is stated that an amount of Rs.3,222/- was seen received through the receipt issued by the Secretary who is the complainant but it was not recorded as a receipt in branch’s Nalvazhy. On the basis of the complainant’s objection, union’s office bearers scrutinized the records of the branch and found that the report is correct. Hence this amount was shown as complainant’s debt to branch in the report of 2008 is correct. There is no provision in the bye-laws of the SNDP to provide copies of its records and other official documents to others. The complainant can inspect the documents at any time with prior notice to this opposite party. Demand for certified copy was not sent in correct address of the Secretary. The complainant have no legal right to obtain copies of records as a matter of right. The complaint is filed in order to harass the opposite party. the complainant was not in good terms with the opposite party and he is scratching and enquiry the shout falls of the present office bearers and the complaint is liable to be dismissed. 3. The evidence consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and Exts.P1 to P5 marked on the side of the complainant and the oral testimony of DWs 1 and 2 and Exts.R1 and R2 marked on the side of the opposite party. 4. The point for consideration is whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to ? 5. The POINT :- Complainant was the Secretary of SNDP Maniyarankudy branch during the period 2003-2006. At the time when the period was terminated, all the accounts of the said branch were promptly transferred to the then Secretary and there was no amount was in due at that time. But when the new Secretary and the administration was started functioning, it was found certain amount was missing in the previous account, that is for Rs.3,222/-. The matter was presented at the General Body meeting and the complainant objected the same. In order to get the copies of the relevant documents of the accounts of SNDP branch, the former Secretary filed the complaint. The complainant was examined as PW1. As per the deposition of the complainant, at the time of complainant as a secretary of the branch, the entire accounts were kept promptly and that was transferred to his predecessors without any delay. Nothing was in due against the complainant at that time. But when the accounts of the year 2006-2007 were produced in the General Body meeting held in 2007 July, it was found that the complainant omitted to mention cash receipt amounting to Rs.3,222/-. The complainant disputed the matter on the same day itself and a notice was given to the opposite party for the same which is marked as Ext.P1. The Presiding Officer of that General Body gave assurance to the complainant that the records would be verified and decision would be taken afterwards. But nothing was done like that. Again in march 2008, when the report of the accounts of 2007-2008 were pronounced in the Annual General Body meeting held on 19.11.2008, it was stated that complainant owes Rs.3,222/- to the branch. It was shown as a personal debt of the complainant towards the branch. Copy of the notice of the General Body was marked as Ext.P2. The complainant, several times requested for perusing the accounts, which is a fabricated one. But nothing was done from the part of the opposite party. Again a notice was sent by the complainant to get the photocopies of the income and expenditure accounts from 2006 January onwards to December 31st, copy of the Minutes report on the day when the accounts were transferred to the predecessor of the complainant, detailed accounts of the Micro Finance from 2005 June to 2006 November, the copy of the account of each member in the branch etc. But the notice was not accepted by the opposite party, it was returned to the complainant and is produced as Ext.P3. As per the complainant, it is the right of the complainant to get the copies of the relevant documents asked by him. The opposite party was examined as DW1. DW1 deposed that the minutes of the accounts were transferred on 22.07.2006 and the nalvazhy and other details were transferred later to the opposite party. When the accounts were transferred it was seen that an amount of Rs.3,222/- was missing. That matter was announced in the General Body meeting held in 2007. The complainant disputed the same. So the Presiding Officer of the General Body told that the accounts should be settled within 3 months, otherwise the due amount would be returned in the name of the complainant. Within 3 months the accounts were perused by the President, Vice President and Member S.I.Somanadhan, it was found that certain amount is owes to the branch. No notice was given from the part of the complainant. As per the rules of the SNDP branch, there is no laws telling that the copy of the accounts should be given to the members and the audited accounts were given to all members of the branch. The monthly payment of the complainant was not received after the termination of the Secretary period. He deposed that as per the bye-law of the SNDP, there is no specific condition to give the copy of the accounts to the members. It is written in the bye-law that the accounts can be perused by the members. One witness was examined s DW2, who was the Secretary of the SNDP, Idukki Union. The union Secretary used to preside over the General Body meeting. He was present in 2006 and 2007 at the General Body meeting of Maniyarankudy branch. It is known to DW2 that the complainant owes Rs.3,222/- to the branch. When audit was conducted, DW2 understood that the complainant did not write a figure of 3222 in the nalvazhy and it was written in the audit report also about the same. A fifteen days prior notice was given to the complainant about this matter. When complainant disputed about the same, DW2 explained about the matter to the complainant. It is the duty of the complainant to pay the amount to the branch. If the complainant needed to peruse the documents, it is allowed to him after giving prior notice to the branch. 6. The main contention of the opposite party is that there is no consumer relationship between the complainant and the opposite party. The opposite party never given or hire any service for consideration to the complainant. Hence the complaint is not sustainable. Here the claim of the complainant is to get the copy of the accounts of the SNDP Branch. As per DW1 and DW2, the Branch Secretary, Maniyarankudy and Union Secretary, Idukki, respectively, the complainant can at any time peruse the accounts of the branch after giving prior notice to the SNDP branch. We think it is not essential for giving all the relevant documents in the SNDP branch to the complainant even there is a dispute of accounts against the complainant. The complainant can peruse the documents and if there is any amount seen in favour of the complainant, the complainant can apply for the copy of the relevant documents. So we think that the claim of the complainant to get the copies of all the documents from the branch is not proper and not essential, there is no deficiency has been seen from the part of the opposite party. Hence the petition is dismissed. No cost is ordered against the petitioner. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 31st day of October, 2008 Sd/- SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT)
Sd/- SMT.SHEELA JACOB(MEMBER) Sd/- SMT.BINDU SOMAN(MEMBER) APPENDIX Depositions On the side of Complainant : PW1 - K.Manoj On the side of Opposite Parties : DW1 - A.K.Gopi DW2 - Suresh Kottackakathu Exhibits On the side of Complainant : Ext.P1(A) - General Body notice dated 22.07.2006 Ext.P1(B) - General Body notice dated 29.07.2007 Ext.P2 - General Body notice dated 9.03.2008 Ext.P3(a) - Returned envelop addressed to the opposite party Ext.P3(b) - AD Card Ext.P4 - SNDP Union Bye-law Ext.P5(a) - Receipt dated 10.02.2008 for Rs.300/- Ext.P5(b) - Receipt dated 7.092006 for Rs.494.75 On the side of Opposite parties : Ext.R1 - General Body notice dated 29.07.2007 Ext.R2 - SNDP Union Bye-law | 
