IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOLLAM

                                           C.C.No. 185/2021

PRESENT

SMT. S.K.SREELA, B.A.L, LL.B, PRESIDENT

      SMT. S.SANDHYA   RANI. BSC, LL.B, MEMBER

  SRI.  STANLY HAROLD, B.A.LL.B, MEMBER

                                         ORDER DATED:   19-06-2023

 BETWEEN

Suresh Babu R., 48 years,

S/o Ramachandra Panicker,

Residing at Plavila Veedu,

Kanjiramcode, Kundara, Kollam 691501.                            :        Complainant

(By Adv. K.Abdul Shahan)    

AND

1.  Popular Traders rep.by its

Managing Partner, Thomas Daniel,

Registered Office, Popular Towers,

Vakayar, Pathanamthitta                                                          : Opposite Parties

2.  My Popular Marine Products LLP,

Rep.by its Designated Partner Thomas Daniel,

Registered Office, Popular Towers,

Vakayar, Pathanamthitta

3. Mary Rani Trading LLP

Rep.by its Designated Partner Thomas Daniel,

Registered Office, Popular Towers,

Vakayar, Pathanamthitta

4.    Y.Mathew Panicker, 67 years,

Former Branch Manager of Popular Traders,

Kundara, Residing at Maliyekkal Mathew Bhavan,

Punnamukku, Perumpuzha P.O., Kollam 691504

5. T.Mathunni Panicker, 53 years,

Branch Manager, Popular Traders,

Kundara residing at Plavila Thekkathil

Raju Nivas Ambipoika, 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:-

1^st opposite party is a proprietary firm in the name and style, Popular Traders, represented by its Managing Partner, Thomas Daniel.  The 2^nd opposite party is the Designated partner of My Popular Marine Products LLP, Kundara Branch and 3^rd opposite party is the designated partner of Mary Rani Trading LLP.  4^th opposite party is the former branch manager and 5^th opposite party is the manager of Popular Traders and My Popular Marine  Products(Popular Finance), Kundara Branch.

1^st, 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties had given advertisement in the daily newspapers daily and other publications that the 1^st opposite party is offering interest @ 12% per annum to those who have made deposit in the  firm of opposite parties 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 4^th and 5^th opposite parties also personally approached the complainant and made believe the complainant that if the complainant deposit a sum of money as fixed deposit in the opposite parties company for a particular period, the company would pay interest @ 12% per annum with liberty to withdraw the accrued interest in each and every month or quarter year by the complainant.  They 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 any failure and also assured that the opposite parties are highly reputed financial institution having several years experience and that the amount deposited is secured and the maturity amount assured is guaranteed.

The advertisement made by the opposite parties in the newspaper dailies and other publications was attracted by the complainant and trusting the words of the 4^th and 5^th opposite parties, the complainant deposited Rs.1,00,000/- on 18.06.2018 before the Kundara Branch of the opposite parties as  fixed deposit for a particular period and in turn the opposite parties issued a fixed deposit receipt

No.0002499 (A/c No.1029991800555) on 18.06.2018.  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 and thereafter on 30.05.2019, the complainant again deposited Rs.1,00.000/- in the firm of the opposite parties and the opposite parties issued a receipt                  (A/c No.102991900521) and again on 18.01.2020 the complainant deposited Rs.70,000/- with the opposite parties and in turn they issued a receipt No.6010 (A/cNo.1020381900867).

The complainant pleads that when the complainant made the fixed deposits before the opposite parties, the complainant became the consumer of the opposite parties.  That opposite parties agreed to release the amount along with interest covered by the fixed deposit certificates to the complainant on or before the specified periods as assured by the opposite parties or on demand by the complainant.  But thereafter the opposite parties failed to pay the interest to the complainant.  Thereafter, the complainant made several demands to the opposite parties to pay the arrears of interest along with the fixed deposit amount to the complainant, but they 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 clear case of contractual violation, deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.  That now it is reliably known that the opposite parties had purposefully closed their offices.  Thereafter the complainant had preferred complaints before the police authorities.  All the opposite parties are jointly, severally and vicariously liable to indemnify the complainant.

That the complainant had availed the service of the opposite parties for consideration but the opposite parties willfully, legally and arbitrarily failed to provide the service to the complainant as they agreed.  That the opposite parties

agreed and guaranteed the prompt payment of interest for 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, so the above said act and conduct of the opposite parties are a clear case of deficiency in service towards the complainant and also unfair trade practice and the opposite parties are illegally withholding the money of the complainant for their illegal enrichment.  Hence the complaint.  

Notice was issued to the opposite parties and they failed to appear before the Commission, hence they were set exparte.  The complainant filed chief affidavit in lieu of chief examination and reiterated the averments in the complaint and got marked Ext.P1 to P3 documents.  Ext.P1 is the deposit receipt No.0002499 for Rs.1,00,000/- dated 18.06.2018,  Ext.P2 is the copy of receipt A/c No.1029991900521 dated 30.05.2019 for Rs.1,00,000/- and Ext.P3 is original receipt No.0576010(A/c No.1020381900687) for Rs.70,000/-  dated 18.01.2020.  The originals of Ext.P1 and Ext.P2 were received by the opposite parties on 10.06.2020 and endorsed their signatures in the photocopies.  Heard the learned counsel for the complainant.  Perused the records.

On the basis of uncontroverted testimony of the complainant coupled with Ext.P1 to P3 documents it can be safely concluded that the complainant has established his case warranting the relief sought for. The materials available on record would indicate that the complainant had approached the opposite parties and repeatedly demanded for the withdrawal of his deposits.  But the opposite parties were not ready to refund the principal amount.  It is evident that the opposite parties are illegally withholding the money of the complainant for their illegal enrichment and thereby refrained from their contractual obligations which clearly proves the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.  In the result we are of the view that the complaint is only to be allowed and the complainant is

entitled to realize Rs.2,70,000/- from the opposite parties together with interest @ 12% per annum and compensation of Rs.10,000/- and Rs.5,000/- as the costs of the proceedings from the date of the complaint till realization.

In the result complaint stands allowed in the following terms:-

1. The opposite parties 1 to 5 are directed to pay Rs.2,70,000/- as per Ext.P1 to P3 fixed deposit receipts with interest @ 12% per annum from 18.06.2018  till realization to the complainant.
2. The opposite parties 1 to 5 are further directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation and costs of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant.
3. The opposite parties 1 to 5 are directed to comply with the above directions within 45 days from today failing which the complainant may initiate execution proceedings.                                                   

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant  Smt. Minimol S. transcribed and typed by her corrected by me and pronounced in the  Open Commission this the 19^th day of  June 2023. 

Sd/-

STANLY HAROLD

MEMBER

            Sd/-

S.K.SREELA

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

S.SANDHYA RANI

MEMBER

Forwarded/by Order                                                                                                           

               Senior superintendent

INDEX

Witnesses Examined for the Complainant:-Nil

Documents marked for the  complainant

Ext.P1    : Deposit receipt No.0002499 for Rs.1,00,000/- dated 18.06.2018

Ext.P2       : Copy of receipt A/c No.1029991900521 dated 30.05.2019 for Rs.1,00,000/-

Ext.P3    : Original receipt No.0576010(A/c No.1020381900687) for Rs.70,000/- 

              dated 18.01.2020. 

Witnesses Examined for the opposite party:-Nil

Documents marked for opposite party:-Nil