IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOTTAYAM
Dated this the 31st day of January, 2022
Present: Sri. Manulal V.S. President
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member
C C No.35/21 (filed on 10.02.2021)
Petitioner : Shince Joseph,
S/o K.I.Joseph,
Kottukappallil Veettil,
Madukka P.O.,
Kanjirappally.
(Adv.Tomy K. James, Adv.Avaneesh V.N.)
Vs.
Opposite parties : 1. Kottayam District Agricultural Producers
And Self Help Groups Co-operative Credit Society Ltd. No.1171,
Koodathumukkil Buildings,
Ayarkunnam P.O.,
Kottayam, represented by its Secretary.
2. Kuriachen Kodikulam,
President,
Kottaym District Agricultural Producers
and Self Help Groups Co-operative
Credit Society Ltd. No.1171, Koodathumukkil Buildings,
Ayarkunnam P.O.,
Kottayam,
(Adv. Pradeepkumar T.P for Op1&Op 2)
O R D E R
Sri. Manulal V.S. President
This complaint is filed u/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019.
Case of the complainant is as follows:
The complainant and his father approached the opposite parties for a job as a clerk. It is averred in the complaint that as the opposite parties directed to deposit amount as fixed deposit or canvass others, the father of the petitioner initially deposited Rs. 2,20,000/- as F.D. on 17-8-2017 and Rs. 30,000/- on 29-08-2017 for a term of one year. After that the complainant was appointed as a clerical trainee and thereafter the complainant deposited Rs.30,000/- and 20,000/- on 11-10-2017 and 4-11-2017 respectively. Among these deposits F.D. receipt was issued only for Rs.2,20,000/-. After the wage less initial months an amount of Rs. 5000/- was given to the complainant for two-three months and Rs. 3000/- for next few months. Thereafter the opposite parties did not care to pay salary. After one year though the petitioner repeatedly demanded the balance salary and return of F.D. amounts, the opposite parties neglected the demand saying lame excuses. As there was no salary petitioner left the job from the society. The respondent did not care to repay the amount to the complainant even after the period was over. On 26-9-2019 the second respondent send a letter asking the petitioner to collect deposit amounts.
Thereafter on 9-10-2020 father of the petitioner issued a lawyers notice the opposite parties demanding the return of fixed deposit amounts with interest. In reply to the said notice though the opposite party admitted the fixed deposit amounts but stated that since the opposite parties are in a very much financial crisis and it is very difficult to return the amounts all of sudden. It is alleged in the complaint that for last three and half years the amounts were in the hands of the opposite parties. The act of the opposite parties not repaying the amounts as promised by the opposite parties amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. Thus this complaint is filed praying for an order directing the opposite parties to repay Rs. 50,000/- along with interest and for compensation.
Upon notice the opposite parties appeared through the counsel. Though the several adjournments were given to file the version the opposite parties did not care to file version or to contest their case. Hence opposite parties declared as ex-parte.
Complainant filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and Ext.A1 to A4 were marked.
On evaluation of complaint and evidence on record we would like to consider the following point:
- Whether the complainant has succeed to prove deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on part of the opposite parties and whether he is entitled for any reliefs?
The specific case of the complainant is that to obtain a job as clerk in the first opposite party society on 17-8-2017 his father deposited Rs. 2,20,000/- as fixed deposit with first opposite party as directed by the second opposite party. Thereafter on 29-8-2017 another amount of Rs. 30,000/- was also deposited as fixed deposit for a term of one year. After the above said deposits the complainant appointed as clerical trainee in the first opposite party society. Thereafter on 11-10 2017 and 1-11-2017 the complainant deposited Rs. 30,000/- and Rs. 20,000/- respectively with first opposite party society for a terms of one year. Ext.A1 is the photocopy of the FD receipt no. which is issued by the opposite parties to the father of the complainant on 17-8-2017. According to the complainant he had worked with first opposite party for one year with a meagre salary. After one year when he demanded to return the fixed deposit amounts and arrears of the salary the opposite parties evaded from his demand rising lame excuses. Exhibit A2 is the letter issued by the second opposite party to the father of the complainant. In exhibit A2 it was stated that the amounts which were deposited by the father of the complainant and complainant can be withdrawn or renewed on 11-11-2019 on production of the original F.D receipts. On perusal of Ext. A2 we can see that the second opposite had admitted that the complainant had deposited Rs. 20,000/- on 11-10-2017 and Rs. 30,000/- on 4-11-2017. In Ext. A4 which is the reply sent by the counsel of the opposite parties to the complainant it is admitted that the amounts which are stated in Ext.A3 lawyers notice was deposited with the opposite parties. Though the opposite parties admitted the long term deposits which were made by the complainant and his father but the opposite parties seeks time for the refund of the same stating that they are facing some financial crisis which were beyond their control. Thus we are of the opinion that the complainant is entitled to refund Rs. 50,000/- from the opposite parties.
As per section 2(11) of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or any act of negligence or omission or commission by such person to the consumer amounts to deficiency in service.
In the light of above discussion we are of the opinion that the opposite parties committed deficiency in service by not refunding the fixed term deposit amounts to the complainant as agreed by them. Due to deficient act of the opposite parties the complainant had suffered much loss, hardship and mental agony for which the opposite parties are jointly and severely liable to compensate.
Thus we allow the complaint and pass the following order.
We hereby direct the opposite parties 1 and 2 to refund Rs. 20,000/- to the complainant which is the amount deposited by the complainant with the opposite parties with 8.5% interest from 11-10-2017 and Rs. 30,000/- from 4-11-2017 till realization.
We here by direct the opposite parties 1 and 2 to pay Rs. 20,000/- as compensation to the complainant for the act of deficiency in service by the opposite parties.
Order shall be complied within 30 days receipt of this order failing which the compensation amount Rs. 20,000/- will carry 6% interest from the date of this order till realization.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed and typed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 31st day of January, 2022.
Sri. Manulal V.S. President Sd/-
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member Sd/-
Appendix
Exhibits marked from the side of complainant
A1- Fixed Deposit Receipt dated 17.08.17
A2- The letter issued by the second opposite party dated 26.09.19
A3- Lawyers Notice dated 09.10.2020
A4- The reply sent by the council of the opposite parties to the complainant
Exhibits marked from the side of opposite party
Nil
By Order
Senior Superintendent
