IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KANNUR Present: Sri.K.Gopalan: President Smt.K.P.Prethakumari: Member Smt.M.D.Jessy: Member Dated this, the 12th day of January 2010 CC/167/2008, 248/2008, 250/2008, 281/2008 CC/167/2008 K.Raghavan, Rajaninivas, Complainant Elampara, P.O.Edayannur (Rep. by Adv.P.N.Nambiar) Managing Director, Tellicherry Taluk co-op.Marketing & Opposite party Processing Society Ltd., P.O.Mattannur. (Rep. by Adv.K.M.Surendran) 248/2008 A.Padmavathi, GOPA Nivas, Pazhassi Amsom, Mattannur Desom, Complainant P.O.Mattannur. Managing Director, Tellicherry Taluk co-op.Marketing & Opposite party Processing Society Ltd., P.O.Mattannur. (Rep. by Adv.K.M.Surendran) 250/2008 K.C.Padmanabhan Kolari Amsom, P.O.Porora, Complainant Mattannur 670702 Managing Director, Tell cherry Taluk co-op.Marketing & Opposite party Processing Society Ltd., P.O.Mattannur. (Rep. by Adv.K.M.Surendran) 281/2008 K.Damodran Nambiar, Kolari Village, Kayalur Desom, Complainant PO.Chavasseri, Mattannur 570 702 Managing Director, Tellicherry Taluk co-op.Marketing & Opposite party Processing Society Ltd.,P.O.Mattannur. (Rep. by Adv.K.M.Surendran) O R D E R Sri.K.Gopalan, President As the subject mater of the above complaints are similar and opposite party is one and the same the above four complaints have taken up for consideration together for the sake of convenience. CC/167/2008 This is a complaint filed under section12 of consumer protection Act for an order directing the opposite party to pay an interest of Rs.18, 031/- and a cost of Rs.10, 000/- The facts of the complainant are as follows: Complainant deposited his retirement benefits Rs.2, 03,886/- on 27.7.04 @ 8% for a period of 3 months. The maturity date was 8.10.2004. The deposit was renewed for further period on attaining maturity adding the interest to the deposit amount. An amount of Rs.70, 092/- was repaid on 5.7.06. The balance as on 5.7.06 was Rs.1,52,438/-.Thereafter the opposite party stopped crediting interest. At the intervention of the joint Registrar of co-operative societies the deposit amount was repaid in four installments as under: 25-6-07 Rs.35, 994/- 25-10-07 Rs.40, 000/- 26-2-08. Rs.37, 000/- 26-6-08 Rs.39, 444/- The interest due is as follows:- 5-7-06 to 24-6-07 Rs.11, 828 on FD Rs.152438/- 25-6-07 to 24-10-07 Rs. 3,088 on FD Rs.116444/- 25-10-07 to 25-2-08 Rs. 2,078 on FD Rs. 76444/- 26-2-08 to 25-6-08 Rs. 1,037 on FD Rs. 39444/- Total 18,031 The joint Registrar of co-operative societies in their order dated 28.5.07 has ordered to repay the deposit in four installments and suggested to co-operate depositors not to claim interest after the sale of the properties. The first item of Rs.11, 828/- is for the period prior to the order of Registrar. In respect of other cases the depositors did not agree to the suggestion of Joint Registrar. Thus complainant is eligible to receive the interest. But opposite party reluctant to pay the interest even though complainant approached the opposite party several time. Complainant spent about Rs.900/- on travel, phone call etc. during the first 3 years. Complainant suffered much mental agony. There is deficiency on the side of opposite party. Hence this complaint. Pursuant to the notice opposite party entered appearance and filed version denying the main allegation of the complainant. Opposite party’s case in brief are as given below. The complainant was an employee of the opposite party society and he retired from service in the year 1998. The period of retirement of the complainant and thereafter the society was under financial stringency which compelled the society to sell off some items of the properties of bank. In the above said circumstances, the then Managing Committee of the society made a proposal and the same is accepted by the employees. Accordingly the retirement benefits of the retiring employees shall be credited in the account of the concerned employees and the amount will be disbursed to them when the society gets over the financial crisis. Thus the retirement benefits of the complaint and other employees were deposited in the society as fixed deposits of different terms with prevailing rate of interest. The society thereafter made an application to the Joint Registrar of co-operative societies for the permission to sell its assets so as to pay off the debts of the bank. Permission granted to sell only 32 cents of property. From amount realized first paid payment to govt. agencies and the amount available to pay the other creditors was meager. Society disposed of the said amount proportionately to other creditors also, including this complainant. On account of the grudge that was existed while in services in respect of certain disciplinary action, complainant had been haunting after the society organizing other similar employees. The complainant along with certain others ex-employees had filed a writ petition. Simultaneously another petitioner with same relief was filed before Joint Registrar of society also. The writ petition was dismissed. Appeal taken against that order also was dismissed. Thereafter a review petition was filed and as per the judgment (13-3-2007) therein it was directed to pass appropriate order in accordance with the law within two months. Joint Registrar disposed of the matter on 28.5.07. Following the order of Joint Registrar, complainant and other Ex.-employees approached the opposite party and thus amount of Deposits have been disposed fully according to the terms and conditions in the order by the Joint Registrar. Hence the subject matter of the dispute in the above complaint has not been existing at present. The above case is not that of a deposit but in respect of the retirement benefits of an employee. Since the complainant accepted the benefits as per the order of Joint registrar which is consequential to the order of the Hon’ble High Court the complainant has no authority to file the above case. Opposite party further pleads that complainant does not renew the terms of his fixed deposit, in respect of which interest in claimed from 8.9.2006 onwards. There was no condition for automatic renewal of deposit. The opposite party is not liable to pay the interest as claimed in complaint. Hence to dismiss the complaint. On the above pleadings the following issues have been taken for consideration. 1. Whether the complaint is maintainable? 2. Whether there is any deficiency on the part of opposite party? 3. Whether the complainant is entitled to get the relief as prayed in the complaint? 4. Relief and cost. The evidence consists of oral testimony of PW1, DW1, and Ext.A1 to A4 and B1 to B6. CC/248/2008 This is a complaint filed under sectin12 of consumer protection act for an order directing the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.48002/- as interest and a sum of Rs.10, 000/- as compensation together with Rs.1000/-as cost. The case of the complainant in brief are as follow: complaint deposited her retirement benefits Rs.5, 00,000/- as fixed deposit @8% on 31.3.05. The maturity date was 30.6.05. Repayment by the following installments 11-6-07 Rs. 2,00,000/- 10-10-07 Rs. 1,10, 000/- 12-2-07 Rs. 1,10, 000/- 24-7-08 Rs. 1,10,000/- Details of interest entitled for 30-9-06 to 10-6-07 Rs. 29,390 on FD Rs.5,30,000/- 11-6-07 to 9-10-07 Rs. 8,679 on FD Rs.3, 30,000/- 10-10-07 to 12-2-08 Rs. 6,027 on FD Rs. 2,20,000/- 12-2-08 to 23-7-08 Rs. 3,906 on FD Rs. 1,10,000/- Rs.48, 002/- Opposite party filed version reiterating the contentions same as that of CC.167/2008.Hence it is not unnecessarily repeating here. On the above pleadings the following issues have been taken for consideration. 1. Whether the complaint is maintainable? 2. Whether there is any deficiency on the part of opposite party? 3. Whether the complainant is entitled to get the relief as prayed in the complaint? 4. Relief and cost. The evidence adduced in OP167/08 is adopted both parties. CC/250/2008 This is a complaint filed under sectin12 of consumer protection act for an order directing the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.47686/- as interest and a sum of Rs.10, 000/- as compensation together with Rs.1000/-as cost. The case of the complainant in brief is as follow: complaint deposited his retirement benefits Rs.5, 00,000/- as fixed deposit. The total interest due but the opposite party is Rs.47684/- . All other pleadings are as same as 1st complaint. The opposite party filed version reiterated same contention raised in the version CC.167/08. On the above pleadings the follows:- 1. Whether the complaint is maintainable? 2. Whether there is any deficiency on the part of opposite party? 3. Whether the complainant is entitled to get the relief as prayed in the complaint? 4. Relief and cost. The evidence given in the first complaint is adopted by both parties herein. CC.281/2008 This is a complaint filed under sectin12 of consumer protection act for an order directing the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.41, 419/- as interest and a sum of Rs.10, 000/- as compensation together with Rs.1000/-as cost. The case of the complainant in brief is as follows: complainant deposited his retirement benefits Rs.5, 00,000/- as fixed deposit @8% p.a and the maturity date was6.10.05. It was renewed further. The interest due payable was 41,419/- and the same has not been paid by the complainant. Hence this complaint. Opposite party has the same contention raised in CC.167/08 hence it is not repeating herein again. On the above pleadings the following issues have been taken for consideration. 1. Whether the complaint is maintainable? 2. Whether there is any deficiency on the part of opposite party? 3. Whether the complainant is entitled to get the relief as prayed in the complaint? 4. Relief and cost. The evidence consists of the oral testimony of PW1, DW1 and Ext.A1 to A4 and B1 to B6 for all the complaints. Issue Nos.1 to 4 in CC.167/08,248/08,250/08 and 281/08 The issues in the above complaints have been taken up together for consideration for the sake of convenience and to avoid repetition of discussion of evidence in the complaints. The grievances of complainants are same in nature. All the complainants, except complainant in CC.248/08 who is the wife of a former employee, are former employees of opposite party society. The crux of the case is that complainants withdrawn their deposited amount by different installments in different dates. But opposite party did not give them the deserved interest as stipulated by the term of the fixed deposit. Where as the opposite party contended that the period of retirement of complainants and thereafter the society was under financial stringency. Under such circumstances the then Managing Committee made a proposal before the employees and the same was accepted by them and retirement benefit credited in the account of employees on condition that the amount shall be disbursed when the society get over the financial stringency. Thus the retirement benefits were deposited in the society as fixed deposit of different terms with prevailing rate of interest. The appeals up on the said order of dismissal of writ petition filed by the complainants were dismissed. Review petition filed against the same and as per the judgment 13.3.2007 the joint Registrar was directed to pass appropriate order within two months and accordingly the deposits have been disposed fully. Hence the subject mater does not exist at present. Before going into other aspect it is necessary determine the question whether or not the complaint is maintainable? All the complainants are admittedly depositors of the society, opposite party. The statement in the version that “ Accordingly the retirement benefits of the complainant as well as that of other employees of the society was deposited in the society as fixed deposits of different terms at the rate prevailing at that time as interest for he same”, makes it clear that all the complainants are consumers. Even if the payment is adjustment payment their status as depositors kept alive on fixing terms and conditions legally applicable to depositors. Until and unless the complainants are keeping the status of depositors they are all consumers irrespective taking into consideration that the opposite party is a co-operative society or not. The question of co-operative society has been holding well settled position and it is pertinent to note here that what Hon’ble Supreme court held in Secretary, Thirumugam co-op Agricultural credit Society vs. M.Lathika and others reported in 2004 CTJ I(SC)(CP that “The Forum under the Consumer Protection act have jurisdiction to entertain complaint despite the fact that other Forums/Courts would also have jurisdiction to adjudicate up on the lis”. Thus the above complaints are maintainable. More over, Ext.B1 is the order of Hon’ble High Court in the review petition R.P.No.176 of 2007(B). Revision petition by complainants were to seek direction to the Joint Registrar of co-op. societies, Kannur to pass appropriate orders to effect the payment of salary arrears, pension fund amount, retirement benefits etc. Thus it can be seen that the points for consideration before the Hon’ble High Court were those one that arose in connection with the retirement benefits whereas, the issue raised before the Forum is in connection with the payment of interest , due to the complainants as depositors. The issues that connected with the rights and benefits of an employee and its payment was the subject matter that had been agitated before the Hon’ble High court. The order of the joint registrar makes it ascertain that the amount of deposit was an amount which had been legally entitled to the complaints. If so the status of complainants as depositors and thereby consumers has been established. Thus the complaint is perfectly entertainable. Even thought he complainants are entitled to approach the Forum the ground reality that has been existed for the time being cannot be ignored totally. They Joint Registrar passed his order in accordance with the order of the Hon’ble High Court. The order Ext.B1 dt.5.1.07 follows thus “the Registrar will pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment”. Ext.B2 is the decision of the Joint Registrar issued on 28.5.2007 upon the basis of the order Ext.B1 dt. 5.1.2007. On the basis of his observation that kT-L-¯nsâ C¶s¯ kmT-]-¯nI kml-N-c-y-hpT \ma-am{X hym-]mc ØnXn-bpT Poh-\-¡mÀ¡v t_m[-y-s¸-Sp-¶p-ap-p.-ta kml-N-c-y-¯n \nt£-]-k-T-Jy XncnsI e`n-¡p-¶-Xn\p kT-LT amt\-Pp-saâp X¿m-dm-¡nb ]mt¡-Pp-ambn Poh-\-¡mÀ kl-I-cn-¡-W-sa-¶pT Sn Xob-Xn-I-fn Xs¶- ta¸Sn \nt£-]T XncnsI \ÂtI--Xp-am-Wv. “he decided that “ta \nÀt±-i-§Ä ]men-¡-W-sa¶ hy-h-Ø-bn Sn lcPn ChnsS XoÀ¸m-¡p-¶p.” Thus the decision of the Joint Registrar is to accept the package program of the management. It can be seen that the complainants were practically accepted the decision of the Joint Registrar by receiving the Fixed Deposit from the opposite party. Except a part, the entire benefit of the order Ext.B2 has been enjoyed by the complainants without challenging the order. There remains no question of interest. Complainant has no question that the opposite party has violated the order issued by the Joint Registrar. The order of the Joint Registrar is based on the direction of Hon’ble High Court. When such an order is complied by the opposite party, we are of opinion that it is not justifiable to find deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. Hence complainants are not entitled for any relief. In the result, the complaints CC.167/08, 248/08,250/08 and 281/08 are dismissed. No cost. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- President Member Member APPENDIX IN CC.167/08,248/08,250/08 AND 281/08 Exhibits for the complainants A1.to A4.Copies of the FD receipts issued by OP to complainants Exhibits for the opposite party B1.Copy of the Order No.RP.176/2007 of Hon’ble High Court of Kerala B2.Proceedings of Joint Registrar, Kannur dt.28.5.07 B3.Copy of the ledger extract register in respect of FD of complainants B4.Copy of the receipts issued to complainants B5.Copy of the proceedings of Joint Registrar co-op.socieites dt.10.7.09 B6.Copy of the review petition submitted before the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in 2007 by complainants Witness examined for the complainants PW1.K.Raghavan Witness examined for the opposite party DW1.K.Gangadharan /forwarded by order/ Senior Superintendent Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kannur
......................GOPALAN.K
......................JESSY.M.D
......................PREETHAKUMARI.K.P | | 
