Present : Sri. C.T. Sabu, President
Smt. Sreeja. S., Member
Sri. Ram Mohan R., Member
30th day of November 2022
CC 458/20 filed on 09/11/2020
Complainant : Nabeesa Ismayil, Alangattukkaran House,
Kuruvilassery P.O., Thrissur.
(By Adv. A.D. Benny, Thrissur)
Opposite Parties : 1) Mala Gramapanchayath Rural Non Agricultural Credit
Co-operative Society Ltd., No.R. 1302,
Rep. by Secretary, P.O. Kuruvilassery,
Thrissur – 680 732.
2) Raveendran T.P., Thattanparambil House,
Vadama P.O., Thrissur – 680 732.
3) Jijeesh K.V., S/o Vijayan, Kulangaramuttath House,
Vadama P.O., Thrissur – 680 732.
(Ex-parte)
F I N A L O R D E R
By Sri. Ram Mohan R, Member :
- Complaint in brief, as averred :
The complaint is filed under Section 35(1) of Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The complainant states to have made two fixed deposits, each worth Rs.1,00,000/- bearing Numbers 609 & 610 dtd. 07/09/17, with the 1st opposite party society, the assured rate of interest being 8.75 % p.a.. The due date of both the said fixed deposits was 08/09/18. The 2nd & the 3rd opposite parties are respectively the President and the Secretary of the 1st opposite party society. The opposite parties are alleged to have not returned the maturity value of the said deposits to the complainant upon maturity, despite several requests to that effect made by the complainant. A lawyer notice sent to the 1st opposite party was statedly returned with postal endorsement “abolished”. Hence the complaint. The complainant alleges deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and prays for an order directing the opposite parties to return the deposit amount, apart from other reliefs of compensation and costs.
2) NOTICE :
Commission issued notice to all the opposite parties, The 2nd and the 3rd opposite parties have neither entered appearance nor filed their version before the Commission, in spite of their having received the Commission’s notice. Notice to the 1st opposite party was returned with postal endorsement “door locked”. Newspaper publication of the notice was also effected against the 1st opposite party, but the 1st opposite party also failed to enter appearance or file their version before the Commission. Hence proceedings against all the opposite parties were set ex-parte.
3) Evidence :
The complainant produced documentary evidence that had been marked Exts. A1 to A3, apart from affidavit and notes of argument. The proceedings against the opposite parties being ex-parte, no evidence produced on their part.
4) Deliberation of evidence and facts of the case :
The Commission scrupulously examined the facts and evidence of the case. Ext. A1 (series) comprise 2 fixed deposit Certificates dtd.07/09/17 numbered 609 & 610, issued by the 1st opposite party in favour of the complainant, each worth Rs.1,00,000/-. Ext. A2 is copy of the lawyer notice. Ext. A3 is the Postal envelope returned with endorsement “abolished”.
5) Points of deliberation :
(i) Whether the act of the opposite parties is tantamount to unfair trade
practice ? Or whether there is any deficiency in service on the part
of opposite parties ?
(ii) Whether the complainant is entitled to receive the refund of the
deposits he made and to receive any compensation from the
opposite parties ? If so its quantum ?
(iii) Costs ?
6) Point No.(i)
Ext. A1 series - certificates evidence the 1st opposite party’s receipt of deposits worth Rs.2,00,000/- from the complainant assuring 8.75% interest p.a.. The 2nd & the 3rd opposite parties were the persons responsible for the conduct of business of the 1st opposite party society in their capacities as the President and the Secretary respectively. The opposite parties allegedly evaded return of the maturity value of the saiddeposits to the complainant. Evidently there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Collecting deposits from people offering attractive interest rate and subsequently fleeing with the funds of the poor investors, is certainly an unfair trade practice. Section 2(42) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 unequivocally reveals that the opposite parties’ activities like accepting deposits etc. fall well within the definition of “service”. The return of the Commission’s notice to the 1st opposite party with the postal endorsement of “door locked” and their failure to contest the case despite newspaper publication of notice, further unveil the 1st opposite party’s malafide intent to defraud and deceive the poor consumers who invested money with them.
The 2nd and the 3rd opposite parties have not cared to file their written version before the Commission, despite their having received the Commission’s notice. This recalcitrant and neglectful demeanour of the 2nd and the 3rd opposite parties unveils their blatant disregard to the process of law. The opposite parties’ conscious failure to submit their written version amounts to admission of allegations levelled against them by the complainant. The Hon’ble National Commission expressed the same view by its order dtd. 09/10/17 in RP 579/2017 [2017 (4) CPR 590]
In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, we find no reason to disbelieve the alleged failure on the part of the opposite parties in returning the deposits received from the complainant, as well as in promptly paying the assured interest on the said deposits. The said act of the opposite parties constitutes deficiency in service and adoption of unfair trade practice.
7) Point No (ii) :
As elaborated supra, point No.(i) is proved in favour of the complainant. The opposite parties are bound to return the deposits received from the complainant i.e. Rs.2,00,000/- vide Ext. A1 series of certificates.
The opposite parties’ misdeed of non - payment of assured interest and failure to return the deposits even after maturity, have certainly inflicted financial loss, mental agony and hardship on the complainant. The opposite parties have necessarily to compensate the complainant. We are of the considered view that the complainant is entitled to receive from the opposite parties a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards compensation for the financial loss, a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and hardship he underwent and a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards costs.
In the result, the complaint is allowed.
The opposite parties are jointly and severally directed to refund to the complainant the total amount of deposits received from him i.e. Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two lakh only), with 8.75% interest p.a. from 07/09/17 till the date of realisation.
Further, the opposite parties are jointly and severally directed also to
- pay the complainant a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) towards compensation for the financial loss, agony and hardship he underwent, and
- a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) towards costs,
both with 9% interest p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till the date of realisation. The opposite parties shall comply with all the above directions within 30 days of receipt of copy of this order.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Commission this the 30th day of November 2022.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
Sreeja S. Ram Mohan R C. T. Sabu
Member Member President
Appendix
Complainant’s Exhibits :
Ext. A1 (series) comprise 2 fixed deposit Certificates dtd.07/09/17 numbered
609 & 610, issued by the 1st opposite party in favour of the
complainant, each worth Rs.1,00,000/-.
Ext. A2 copy of the lawyer notice.
Ext. A3 Postal envelope returned with endorsement “abolished”.
Id/- Member
