DATE OF FILING :09.09.2010
BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI
Dated this the 31st day of January, 2011
Present:
SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN PRESIDENT
SMT.SHEELA JACOB MEMBER
SMT.BINDU SOMAN MEMBER
C.C No.192/2010
Between
Complainant : K.J.Mary,
Kumbakkattu House,
Konnackamali P.O,
Kallippara,
Vathikudy Village,
Idukki District.
(By Adv: V.C.Sebastian)
And
Opposite Parties : 1. Mary Martin,
Mahilapradhan Agent,
Mankuzhiyil House,
Chelachuvadu P.O,
Idukki District.
(By Adv: Jose Thomas)
2. The District Officer,
National Savings Office,
Collectorate,
Kuyilimala P.O,
Idukki District.
O R D E R
SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT)
The complainant was working as a UD Clerk in Govt. I.T.I, Kattappana. The Ist opposite party approached the complainant and explained about the deposits such as Post Office Recurring deposit, National Savings Scheme etc. and compelled the complainant to join in the above mentioned schemes. She assured that there is an interest of 11.65%, bonus, incentive and lottery scheme for the investments. It was told to the complainant that if she pays Rs.2,000/- each per month for 5 years the complainant would get 3 Lakhs including the amount, interest, bonus and incentive. The Ist opposite party also told to the complainant that it is a Central Government Scheme and the District Collector is the authority. So the complainant joined in the investment scheme of Rs.2,000/- each per month for 5 years and started the payment from March 2004. A card was also issued to the complainant for the same. The complainant paid Rs.94,000/- upto 2008 January. There was a fixed deposit in the Sub Treasury, Kattappana for the complainant for an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- and it was deposited with an interest of 12% and penal interest. The complainant deposited that amount also to the opposite party's investment scheme after cancelling the treasury deposit. The complainant also deposited her PF amount to the opposite party, attracted by the assurance of the opposite party that she will get double of the amount after 5 years. Thus she deposited Rs.80,000/- in the month of September 2004 to the opposite party and the opposite party delivered 8 National Savings Certificates of Rs.10,000/- each for the same. Another deposit of Rs.1,50,000/- was done with the opposite party in May 2006. When the complainant requested for the documents of the deposits the opposite party never supplied the same. Again the complainant requested for the pass book and statement of account of the deposits. So after several requests the opposite party told the complainant that the complainant will not get Rs.3 Lakhs for the scheme No.1, which is the deposit of Rs.2,000/- each per month for 5 years. The opposite party told that the amount for the same will be Rs.1,45,000/- after the maturity. The opposite party afterwards told that in the other deposit of Rs.1,50,000/-, she will get an interest of Rs.73,000/- only. The opposite party also told that the PF deposit will not become double of the amount and it will mature only after 6 years. In order to get commission from the complainant, unlawful assurances were given by the Ist opposite party to the complainant and so she is liable for giving compensation for the loss caused to the complainant. The complainant caused a loss of Rs.3,79,640/- in the entire deposit schemes and the opposite parties are liable for the same. So this petition is filed for getting compensation and cost.
2. As per the written version filed by the Ist opposite party, she is working as a Mahila Pradhan Agent for the last 15 years and received many cash awards in the Idukki Block for her better performance. She never forced the complainant to join in any scheme promoted by National Savings Scheme of the Central Government. After studying about all schemes and interest percentage, the complainant joined in a monthly recurring deposit scheme of Rs.2,000/- each per month. She also started a post office saving account. The complainant told the opposite party that she is well versed about all schemes of National savings since she is educated and employed. The opposite party never assured that Rs.3 Lakhs will be getting after 5 years of deposit of Rs.2,000/- per month. This opposite party conveyed that if the complainant remits Rs.2,000/- each per month for 5 years it would become Rs.1,20,000/- and as per the Government of India norms at present she will get Rs.1,45,000/-. The complainant was told that if she deposit in the monthly income scheme she will get 8% interest per month. She never told that she will get any incentives if the deposits arrive before March 31st. The agents will get only 1% commission for all deposits. The opposite party never told that Rs.1,50,000/- will be doubled after 5 years. The opposite party told the complainant that she will be got 8 % interest as well as 10% bonus if the deposits are withdrawing after 5 years. The complainant deposited Rs.1,20,000/- on 11.10.2004 in monthly income scheme with Number 1550006 and on 2.03.2005, the complainant again deposited Rs.15,000/- in monthly income scheme with Number 1550009. The complainant requested the opposite party to use the monthly interest of this Rs.1,35,000/- for remitting the monthly recurring deposit of Rs.2,000/-. As per the advice, the interest was decided to use for the amount in R.D. But it was not sufficient to reach Rs.2,000/-. The complainant mobilized the rest of the money. The complainant as per her wish approached this opposite party and both went to Post Office and availed 8 national saving certificate of Rs.10,000/- each on 15.09.2004 and the complainant took back the entire amount after 6 years with full benefits. The complainant on 31.03.2006 requested this opposite party that she wanted to open a monthly income scheme in the name of her sister Molly Joseph for Rs.1 lakh and another one in the name of complainant for Rs.50,000/-. As per the request of the complainant the opposite party helped the complainant to introduce her in the post office. The complainant again requested the opposite party and asked the opposite party to open another recurring deposit of Rs.1,000/- with the interest of Rs.1,00,000/- in the name of her sister and Rs.50,000/- in the name of complainant. So the opposite party did it as per the request of the complainant. In the meanwhile the complainant asked the opposite party to withdraw Rs.15,000/- as loan from the recurring deposit of Rs.2,000/- for purchase of some land. The loan was sanctioned. Later the complainant asked this opposite party to deposit that amount in the SB account of the complainant. This opposite party did so when she was entrusted Rs.15,000/-. Later the complainant approached this opposite party and informed that she got transfer and she wanted all the records of the post office savings. As per the request this opposite party handed over all the records pertaining to the complainant to her. When this opposite party approached the Post Office, the officials told that the complainant made all accounts as pre-mature close and withdraw the money through her S.B account. So there was no deficiency in the part of the Ist opposite party.
3. As per the written version filed by the 2nd opposite party, the appointment of the Ist opposite party is not fully authorised by the 2nd opposite party. The Block Development Officer is the authority for the same. The complainant entered into several investments of the opposite party such as MIS, NSC, and RD in different period and the entire amount was withdrawn by the complainant. All the benefits as per the rule were received by the complainant. There is no complaint received from the part of the complainant for dispute in the payment of the amount, dispute in the interest or any deficiency from the part of the opposite party and the details of the account of the complainant were also given. If the complainant invests any of the investments in the name of any other person and the amount has been withdrawn by the complainant, that is to be considered as illegal. In the case of Molly Joseph also, all the legal formalities were complied by the opposite party and no objection raised by the complainant till now. The RD Account No.6440263 was withdrawn on 24.03.2008. The last withdrawal was on 17.09.2010 which was the NSC. The complainant never informed about the details of the deposits at the time of joining the new deposits. She never cleared her doubts if any from the opposite party eventhough she is an educated employee. The complainant never filed any complaint against the agent if any mistake happened from the part of the agent. The first account was withdrawn on 24.03.2008. If any such dispute was there the complainant ought to have closed the accounts on that day itself. The accounts were continued upto 17.09.2010. No complaint was given to the District Collector, BDO or to the 2nd opposite party by the complainant, if there was any complaint against the Ist opposite party. All the deposit schemes were introduced by the Central Government and the changes were also made as per the directions of the Government. The details of the deposits were also given to the depositors by the Government. Other two employees of the Govt. I.T.I were also joined in the investment scheme. The complainant might have communicated with them before staring the investments. So this petition is liable to be dismissed.
4. The point for consideration is whether there was any deficiency in service from the part of the opposite parties, and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to ?
5. The evidence consists of the oral testimony of PWs 1 and 2 and Exts.P1 to P13 marked on the side of the complainant and the oral testimony of DW1 on the side of the opposite parties.
6. The POINT :- The complainant deposed as PW1. As per PW1, she has joined in several deposit schemes under the opposite parties. Ext.P1 is the deposit card issued by the opposite party for the monthly investment of Rs.2,000/- each and Ext.P2 is the deposit card for the monthly investment of Rs.1,000/- each. The copy of National Savings Certificates issued by he opposite party 8 in numbers are marked as Ext.P3(series). Copy of the pass book issued for the post office savings account is marked as Ext.P4. The Statement of Account supplied to the complainant is marked as Ext.P5. PW1 entered into a recurring deposit scheme of Rs.100/- each for 5 years under the Ist opposite party and the amount was withdrawn after the maturity period. Several office staff of PW1 entered into deposit schemes under the Ist opposite party and the friends of PW1 compelled her to join in the recurring deposit scheme. The complainant enquired at the Post Office about the scheme. She withdrawn the amount before the maturity period. She is aware that if any deposit has been withdrawn before the maturity period, she is not liable for the interest as per the scheme. PW1 herself withdrawn all the deposits. Rs.1,50,000/- was to be deposited to the Ist opposite party but the Ist opposite party deposited only Rs.1,35,000/- as per Ext.P5. PW1 also entrusted the Ist opposite party to deposit some amount in the name of Molly Joseph, who is the sister of the complainant. The Ist opposite party made initials in the investment card issued to the complainant. So the complainant never enquired about the same in the Post office. PW1 is liable for getting the interest as prescribed by the Government. Several advertisements were published by the opposite party about the investments. PW1 never enquired about the details to the agent. An office staff of the complainant named Mr.George introduced the complainant to the Ist opposite party. All other office staff in their office joined in the scheme and they all were withdrawn the investments before the maturity period. But there is a decrease of Rs.15,000/- in the M.I.S given by the complainant which was done in April 2005. No complaint has been raised against the Ist opposite party for the same or to the 2nd opposite party or to the District Collector. There is another amount of Rs.13,000/- was not deposited by the opposite party and it is understood by the complainant at the time when she withdrawn the amount on 16.06.2008. The detailed accounts were received only after getting Ext.P5. PW2 is the Post Master of Idukki Painavu Post Office. The complainant availed a loan of Rs.47,000/- on 22.03.2008 and the same was not repaid. Ext.P6 is the detailed statement of account given to the complainant by the Superintendent of Post Offices. The complainant availed a loan of Rs.13,000/- on 23.06.2008 and it was not repaid. Another amount of Rs.20,000/- was received as loan on 9.06.2008 and it was also not repaid. It is also written in Ext.P6. Ext.P7(series) are the original pass book and connected records issued to the complainant for A/c No.6440263. Ext.P8(series) are another pass book of the complainant for A/c No.6440370 and also the copy of the withdrawal form of the complainant's account. Ext.P9(series) are the copy of the withdrawal form of complainant's account for Rs.13,000/- and PW1 received Rs.26,627/- on 6.07.2009. The transaction of the complainant is also mentioned in Ext.P9(series). Ext.P10(series) are the pass book of another account of the complainant as No.1550009. The withdrawal form also produced for the same. Another withdrawal of the complainant's account as No.1550024 is produced as Ext.P11(series). Copy of the withdrawal and closing of the National Savings scheme is marked as Ext.P12(series). The complainant herself withdrawn the amount from the opposite party. The loan amount Rs.13,000/- was accounted in SB Account No. as Rs.12,665/-.
7. The Ist opposite party is deposed as DW1. The complainant deposited Rs.4,74,000/- with the opposite party's various Saving Schemes. One of the deposit of the complainant was from the interest of the MIS deposit, which is for Rs.1,000/- each. The papers were signed by the complainant to the opposite party. All the deposits were done after initialing in the pass book. The complainant availed a loan of Rs.13,000/- for the purchase of a property. In that amount Rs.10,000/- was repaid by the complainant. The complainant was to given some amount to the Ist opposite party at that time. So the balance amount was paid to the opposite party as per Ext.P13. DW1 was not at the Post Office when the complainant closed the account.
8. As per the complainant, she entered into several deposits of the opposite party by the assurance given by the Ist opposite party about the interest and also showing the advertisement of the Central Government which was published in various news papers. The Ist opposite party offered 11.5% interest and Rs. 3 Lakhs for a monthly investment of Rs.2,000/- each for 5 years. Another offer was that Rs.1.5 Lakhs will be doubled after 5years. But the complainant when requested for the pass book of the loan, the opposite party denied the same and at last the complainant realized that the assurances given by the opposite party were not correct and they were done only for attracting the complainant for the investments. So the complainant sustained a loss of Rs.3,79,640/- for the same.
9. As per the opposite party, the Post Office Savings Scheme and other investment schemes were introduced by the Central Government. The District Collector and BDO are the authority for the same. Advertisements are given by the Central Government and copies of these advertisements were circulating among the investors. The deposits are as per the norms of the Central Government. Here the complainant never produced any evidence to show that the Ist opposite party compelled the complainant to join in the investment schemes of the Central Government. No paper cuttings or advertisement produced by the complainant for supporting to show that hike interest was offered by the opposite party. It is admitted by the opposite party that these investments were done by the complainant, but the complainant herself withdrawn all the investments before the maturity period. So the prescribed interest rate was not received by the complainant. As per the complainant, some amount was not paid by the Ist opposite party to the 2nd opposite party and it is clear from Ext.P5. But it is admitted by the complainant that all investments were made after getting initials in the pass book and card issued by the opposite party. As per Ext.P6, the details of the accounts of the complainant supplied by the office of the Superintendent of Post Offices, the complainant availed a loan of Rs.47,000/- from the RD A/c No.6440263, which was not repaid. Another loan was availed by the complainant for Rs.20,000/- on 9.06.2008 in A/c No.6440370 and it was also not repaid. Another loan was availed by the complainant in RD A/c No.6440665 opened on 3.02.2006 for an amount of Rs.13,000/- on 23.06.2008 and it was also not repaid. So the deposition of the complainant that she never availed any loan from the account of her with the opposite party is not sustainable. The complainant who is a graduate and working as UD Clerk in a Government institution. She herself deposed that friends and her office staff compelled her for joining in the deposit scheme and office staff also joined in the scheme. If there was any dispute regarding the interest rate of the opposite party, the complainant who is an educated employee ought to have enquried about the same to the opposite party's office. There is no complaint filed by the complainant against the Ist opposite party or any of the opposite parties or to the District Collector or to the BDO regarding the interest or misuse of any money by the Ist opposite party. The complainant herself joined in another investment earlier with the opposite party and it was closed after the maturity period. After that the complainant joined in a series of investments. The complainant was aware of the rules and regulations of the opposite party. So interest may be decreased because of the premature closing of the accounts. So there is no evidence to prove that any deficiency is seen from the part of the opposite parties.
Hence the petition dismissed. No cost is ordered against the complainant.
Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 31st day of January, 2011
Sd/-
SRI. LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT)
Sd/-
SMT. SHEELA JACOB(MEMBER)
Sd/-
SMT. BINDU SOMAN(MEMBER)
APPENDIX
Depositions :
On the side of Complainant :
PW1 - K.J. Mary
PW2 - M.K.Sarojiny
On the side of Opposite Parties :
DW1 - Mary Martin
Exhibits:
On the side of Complainant:
Ext.P1 - Deposit Card issued by the Ist opposite party for the investment of Rs.2,000/-
Ext.P2 - Deposit Card issued by the Ist opposite party for the investment of Rs.1,000/
Ext.P3(series) - Photocopy of National Savings Certificates( 8 Nos)
Ext.P4 - Photocopy of Pass Book issued for the Post Office Savings Account
Ext.P5 - Photocopy of Statement of Account supplied by the Postmaster, Idukki Painavu Post Office
Ext.P6 - Detailed Statement of Account given by the Superintendent of Post Offices, Idukki Division, Thodupuzha to the complainant
Ext.P7(series) - Original Pass Book and other connected records issued to the complainant for Account No.6440263
Ext.P8(series) - Original Pass Book and other connected records issued to the complainant for Account No.6440370
Ext.P9(series) - Photocopy of Withdrawal form of complainant's Account No.6440665 for Rs.13,000/-
Ext.P10(series) - Original Pass Book of the complainant as Account No.1550009 and withdrawal form
Ext.P11(series) - Copy of Withdrawal Form of the complainant's account as No.1550024 and copy of ledger
Ext.P12(series) - Copy of withdrawal and closing of National Savings Bank Account No.630902
Ext.P13 - Copy of deposit of Rs.12,665/-on 4.07.2009 in Account No.630902
On the side of Opposite Parties :
Nil
