IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATHANAMTHITTA.

Dated this the 24^th day of September, 2010.

Present:- Sri. Jacob Stephen (President)

Smt. C. Lathika Bhai (Member)

Sri. N. Premkumar (Member)

C.C.No.124/09 (Filed on 05.09.2009)

Between:

1.     P.E. Radhamani,

Kollethu Veedu,

Attachackal,

Konni Thazham.P.O.,

Pathanamthitta.

2.     Anish Gopan, (Minor)

   -do.  –do.

         (Rep. by 1^st Petitioner).

(By Adv. A.K.Raveendranath)                                         .....     Complainant

And:

1.     Essen Bankers,

Pathanamthitta,

Reg.No.706/95, rep. by-

Managing Director-

M.K. Divakaran,

Residing at Mini Sadanam,

Kannankara, Pathanamthitta.

2.     M.K. Varadarajan,

Manager, Essen Bankers,

Pathanamthitta, residing at:

Manappallil, Pramadom,

Mallassery, Pathanamthitta.

3.     Managing Partner,

Soudhamini Divakaran,

W/o. M.K. Divakaran,

Residing at: Mini Sadanam,

Kannankara, Pathanamthitta – 689 645.

(By Adv. Sam Koshy)                                                     .....     Opposite parties.

O R D E R

Smt. C. Lathika Bhai (Member):

                   The complainants have filed this complaint against the opposite parties for getting a relief from the Forum.

                   2. The fact of the complaint is as follows:  The complainants have deposited an amount of ` 50,000 with the opposite parties bank on 9.6.03 in the name of the 1^st and 2^nd complainant.  1^st opposite party is the Managing Partner and 2^nd opposite party is the Manager and 3^rd opposite party is the Managing Partner of the opposite party bank.  The term of deposit was five years and the 2^nd opposite party offered an interest of 15% to the deposited amount and the opposite parties have issued the deposit receipt to the complainant.  On 9.6.08 the deposit was matured and the complainant approached the opposite parties for getting the deposit amount with interest.  But the opposite parties have did not return the amount even after repeated request.  The non-payment of the deposit amount with interest after maturity is a deficiency in service from the part of opposite parties and the opposite parties are liable to pay the amount with interest.  Hence the complainant filed this complaint against the opposite parties for getting an order for directing the opposite parties to pay the deposit amount with interest and compensation along with cost to the complainant.  The complainant prayed for allowing the complaint.

                   3. The opposite parties have filed a common version stating the following contentions:  The complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts.  The 1^st respondent is not a partner of ESSEN Bankers hence he is an unnecessary party in the petition hence there is a mis-joinder of unnecessary party.  The complainants are already received the entire amount with interest from opposite party bank and they have filed this complaint with an experimental basis.  From the time of deposit the complainants have accepting the interest of deposit on every month hence the contention that interest is due from the date of deposit is absolutely false and they are denied.  The entire amount with interest is received by the complainants on 11.11.05 and on 5.6.06 hence no amount is due to the complainants.  As the entire amount was paid to the complainant, there is no deficiency in service from the part of them.  The complainants are not entitled to get any relief as prayed for in the complaint.  Hence the opposite parties prayed for the dismissal of the complaint with their cost.

                   4. From the above pleadings, the point for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled to get the relief as sought for in the complaint?

                   5. The evidence in this case consists of the oral evidence of the 1^st complainant as PW1 and Ext.A1 marked on the basis of the proof affidavit filed by the complainant.  For the opposite parties, 2^nd opposite party filed a proof affidavit along with 4 documents.  On the basis of the proof affidavit, 2^nd opposite party adduced oral evidence as DW2 and the documents produced were marked as Exts.B1 to B4.  After closure of the evidence, both sides heard.

                   6. The complainant’s case is that she has deposited an amount of ` 50,000/- with the opposite party bank for a term of 5 years in the name of her and her son.  The 2^nd opposite party had offered an interest at the rate of 15% to the deposited amount.  After attaining maturity the complainant approached the opposite parties for getting the fixed deposit amount with interest.  But the opposite parties did not turn up hence she filed this complaint for getting the relief as sought for in the complaint.

                   7. In order to prove the complaint, the complainant adduced oral evidence as PW1 and Ext.A1 marked.  Ext.A1 is the fixed deposit receipt for ` 50,000/- issued by the opposite parties in the name of the complainant and her son on 9.6.03.  The opposite parties counsel has cross-examined PW1.

                   8. The opposite parties have contended that the complainant had accepted the fixed deposit amount with interest from opposite parties on 11.11.05 and 5.6.06.  Hence no amount is due to the complainant from the opposite parties.  There is no deficiency in service from the part of opposite parties.

                   9. In order to prove the contentions of opposite parties, 2^nd opposite party adduced oral evidence as DW1 and Ext.B1 to B4 were marked.  Ext.B1 is the voucher dated 11.11.05 for ` 23,938 signed by the complainant.  Ext.B2 is the voucher dated 11.11.05 for an amount of ` 23,938 signed by the complainant.  Ext.B3 is the voucher dated 5.06.06 for an amount of ` 2,188 signed by the 1<sup>st</sup> complainant in favour of the 2<sup>nd</sup> complainant.  Ext.B4 is the voucher dated 5.6.06 for an amount of ` 2,188 signed by the 1^st complainant in favour of the 2^nd complainant.  Ext.B1 to B4 were marked with the objection of the complaint.  The complainant’s counsel has cross-examined DW1.

                   10. On going through the evidences in this case, the materials on Ext.A1 fixed deposit receipt shows that the complainant had deposited an amount of ` 50,000/- with opposite party bank on 9.6.03 the period of deposit is 5 years and the rate of interest is 15%.  The due date of deposit is 9.6.08.  The opposite parties contended that they have paid the deposit amount on 11.11.05 and 5.6.06 as per vide voucher Ext.B1 to B4.  The complainant alleged that these vouchers are forged and manipulated for exempting the payment of deposit amount to the complainant.  As a usual practice we can see that only after surrendering the fixed deposit receipt the fixed deposit amount will released to the depositors.  In this case, the fixed deposit receipt is still with the custody of the complainant without surrendering the fixed deposit receipt before the opposite parties, we could not come to a conclusion that the opposite parties have paid the deposit amount with interest to the complainant.  In the circumstances, the contentions raised by the opposite parties are not sustainable.  The complainant is entitled to get the deposit amount with agreed interest from the opposite parties.  Therefore, we find that there is a deficiency in service from the part of opposite parties by non-refunding deposit amount with interest to the complainant.  Hence the complainant can be allowed.  Since the interest of the amount is allowed no separate compensation is required.

                   11. In the result, the complaint is allowed thereby the complainant is allowed to realise the fixed deposit amount ` 50,000 (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with its agreed rate of interest 15% per annum from the date of deposit till the maturity and thereafter at the rate of 9% interest per annum till this date.  The opposite parties are directed to pay this amount within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which an interest at the rate of 12% is to be paid to the complainant till the whole realisation of the amount from maturity date.

                    Declared in the Open Forum on this the 24^th day of September, 2010.

                                                                                                         (Sd/-)

                                                                                                C. Lathika Bhai,

                                                                                                      (Member)

Sri. Jacob Stephen (President)            :         (Sd/-)

Sri. N. Premkumar (Member)              :         (Sd/-)

Appendix:

Witness examined on the side of the complainant:

PW1  :  Radhamaniamma

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:

A1     :  Fixed deposit receipt  dated 9.6.03 for ` 50,000/- issued by the

             opposite parties in the name of the complainant and her son.

Witness examined on the side of the Opposite parties:

DW1  :  M.K. Varadarajan

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties:

B1     :  Voucher dated 11.11.05 for ` 23,938 signed by the complainant. 

B2     :  Voucher dated 11.11.05 for ` 23,938 signed by the complainant

              in favour of the 2^nd complainant. 

B3     :  Voucher dated 5.6.06  for ` 2,188 signed by the 1^st complainant.

B4     :  Voucher dated 5.6.06 for an amount of ` 2,188 signed

              by the 1^st complainant.

                                                                                      (By Order)

Copy to:- (1) P.E. Radhamani, Kollethu Veedu, Attachackal, Konni Thazham.P.O.,

           Pathanamthitta.

(2)   M.K. Divakaran, Managing Director, Essen Bankers, Pathanamthitta,

(Residing at:  Mini Sadanam, Kannankara, Pathanamthitta).

(3)   M.K. Varadarajan, Manager, Essen Bankers, Pathanamthitta,

 (Residing at: Manappallil, Pramadom, Mallassery, Pathanamthitta)

(4)   Managing Partner, Soudhamini Divakaran, W/o. M.K. Divakaran,

 Residing at: Mini Sadanam, Kannankara, Pathanamthitta – 689 645.

               (5)  The Stock File.