IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOLLAM

DATED THIS THE     31^st  DAY OF OCTOBER 2022

Present: -        Sri. E.M.Muhammed Ibrahim, B.A, LLM. President

           Smt.S.Sandhya   Rani. Bsc, LLB ,Member

             Sri.Stanly Harold, B.A.LLB, Member

    CC.No.191/2021

Prakash B., 55 years,

S/o Bhargavan,

Residing at Arattuchira Kizhakkathil,

Perayam, Mulavana, Kundara,

Kollam.

(By Adv. K.Abdul Shahan)                                                  :           Complainant

V/s

1. Popular Traders

             Rep.by its ManagingPartner,                                     :         Opposite Parties

         Thomas Daniel,

        Regd.Office, Popular Towers,

       Vakayar, Pathanamthitta.

2. Y.Mathew Panicker,

               Former Branch Manager,

             Popular Traders, Kundara residing at

           Maliyekkal Mathew Bhavan,

            Punnamukku, Perumpuzha P.O., Kollam.

3. T.Mathunni Panicker 53 years,

        Branch Manager,

               Popular Traders,

            Kundara residing at Plavila Thekkathil

       Raju Nivas Ambipoika P.O.,

       Kundara, Kollam. 691501.

ORDER

Sri.Stanly Harold, B.A.LLB, Member

          This is a case based on a complaint filed U/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019.

          The averments in the complaint in short are as follows:-

The 1^st opposite party is a proprietary firm in the name and style Popular Traders, represented by Managing Partner, Thomas Daniel.  The 2^nd opposite party is the former  Branch Manager and 3^rd opposite party is the Manager of Kundara Branch.  The 1^st opposite party advertised in the news paper dailies and other publications that they are offering interest @ 12% per annum to those who have made deposit  in the 1^st opposite party as fixed deposit or any particular period with the liberty to withdraw the accrued interest in each and every month or quarter year by the depositors.  The 2^nd opposite party also personally approached the complainant and made to believe the complainant that if the complainant deposit a sum of money as fixed deposit in the opposite parties firm for a particular period the firm would pay interest @ 12% per annum with liberty to withdraw the accrued interest in each and every month  or quarter year by the complainant and further assured that on maturity of the said deposits or on demand, the deposit amount with accrued interest would be returned to the depositors without fail and also assured that the 1^st opposite party is a highly reputed financial institution having several years of experience and that the amount deposited is secured and the maturity amount assured is guaranteed.

As attracted by the advertisement made by the 1^st opposite party in the newspaper daily and other publications and also believing the words of 2^nd opposite party, the complainant deposited Rs.5,00,000/-(Five Lakhs Only) on 16.06.2019 with the 2^nd opposite party as fixed deposit for a period 12 months and in turn the opposite parties issued a fixed deposit receipt No.0568148(A/c No.1020381900251) dated  16.06.2019.  In the said fixed deposit receipt, the opposite parties agreed to pay interest @ 12% per annum and also agreed to repay the fixed deposit amount on the maturity dates shown in the fixed deposit certificate.  As soon the complainant made the fixed deposit before the opposite parties the complainant became the consumer of the opposite parties.  They agreed to release the amount along with interest covered by the fixed deposit certificates to the complainant on or before 16.06.2020.  But thereafter the opposite parties failed to pay the interest to the complainant.  In spite of repeated

demands on the part of the complainant to the pay of the arrears of interest along with the fixed deposit the opposite parties failed to do so.  While so the complainant came to understand that the opposite parties committed gross financial irregularities in respect of the deposits made by the complainant and other depositors.  The act of the opposite parties are the clear case of contractual violation, deficiency in service and also unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties.  Now it is seen that the opposite parties had purposefully closed their offices.  Thereafter the complainant had preferred petition before the police authorities.  All the opposite parties are jointly, severally and vicariously liable to indemnify the complainant.

This is a case in which the complainant availed the service of the opposite parties for consideration but the opposite parties willfully, legally and arbitrarily failed to provide service to the complainant as they agreed.  It is most respectfully submitted that the opposite parties agreed and guaranteed the prompt payment of interest of the fixed deposit amount in each and every month and also agreed to repay the fixed deposit amount on maturity or as and when the complainant makes the demand.  But the opposite parties failed in their service as they had guaranteed.  This is a clear case of deficiency in service  contractual violation  and also unfair trade practice and the opposite parties are illegally withholding the money of the complainant for their illegal enrichment and in that circumstances the complainant is constrained to file this complaint for getting the reliefs prayed for in the complaint.

Though notice was served to the opposite parties No.1 to 3 they remained absent, hence they were set exparte.  Complainant filed proof affidavit by reiterating the averments in the complaint and got marked Exts.A1 to A3 documents.  Ext.A1 is the original fixed deposit receipt No.0569148                  A/c No.1020381900251 on 16.06.2019 for an amount of Rs.5,00,000/-in the name of the complainant.  Ext.A2 is the police complaint filed by the complainant before the Kundara police station against the opposite parties.  Ext.A3 is the acknowledgement receipt of the petition filed before the Kundara Police Station dated 17.09.2020 bearing No.107362/2020.

The unchallenged averments in the complaint coupled with Ext.A1 document would establish prima facie that the complainant had deposited Rs.5,00,000/- with the opposite parties registered company. The complainant specifically pleads that they had not paid the assured interest on the fixed deposit.  The deposited amounts were also not returned by the opposite parties.  By receiving fixed deposits after advertising in the newspaper, the opposite parties have failed to provide the offered service to the complainant.  The opposite parties assurance of service is made in writing in the Ext.A1 fixed deposit receipt.  It is pertinent to note that the failure to pay the assured interest and failure to repay the deposited amount on maturity is nothing but deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.  In the circumstances the allegation that the complainant had suffered very much mental agony and inconvenience apart from financial loss is believable. The opposite parties are illegally withholding the money of the complainant for their illegal enrichment.

In view of the materials available on record we find merit in the complaint and the same is only to be allowed.  In the result complaint stands allowed in the following terms.

1. Opposite parties 1 to 3 are directed to pay the principal amount covered by Ext.A1 fixed deposit receipt with share of profit/ interest @12% per annum from the date of deposit till realization to the complainant.
2. The opposite parties 1 to 3 are also directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation and Rs.5,000/- as costs to the complainant.
3. Opposite parties 1 to 3 are directed to comply with above directions within 45 days from today failing which the complainant is at liberty to recover the same from the opposite parties No.1 to 3 jointly and severally and also from their assets.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant  Smt. Minimol S. transcribed and typed by her corrected by me and pronounced in the  Open Commission this the     31^st day of  October 2022. 

                                                STANLY HAROLD:Sd/-

   E.M .MUHAMMED IBRAHIM:Sd/-

   S.SANDHYA RANI:Sd/-

Forwarded/by Order

                                                       Senior superintendent

INDEX

Witnesses Examined for the Complainant:-Nil

Documents marked for the  complainant

Ext.A1            : The original fixed deposit receipt No.0569148  A/c No.1020381900251 on

                          16.06.2019 for an amount of Rs.5,00,000/-

Ext.A2            : The police complaint filed by the complainant before the Kundara police

                          station against the opposite parties.

Ext.A3            : The acknowledgement receipt of the petition filed before the Kundara Police

                          Station dated 17.09.2020 bearing No.107362/2020.  

Witnesses Examined for the opposite party:-Nil

Documents marked for opposite party:-Nil