BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PRESENT:
SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT SMT. BEENA KUMARI. A : MEMBER SMT. S.K. SREELA : MEMBER O.P. No: 29/2002 Filed on 17/01/2002 Dated: 30..09..2009 Complainant: Programme for Community Organisation, a registered Society, registered under Travancore Cochin Literary Scientific and Charitable Societies Act, P.C.O. Centre, Spencer Junction, Thiruvananthapuram, represented by its Co-ordinator – Leelamma Jose. (By Adv. Premjith Nagendran)
Opposite party:
Ind Bank Housing Ltd., (A Joint Venture of Indian Bank & HUDCO), T.C.No.26/190, P.B.No.209, 1st Floor, Home Links Building, opp: G.P.O., M.G. Road, Pulimoodu Junction, Thiruvananthapuram – 695 001, represented by its Managing Director. (By Adv. P. Krishnankutty Nair) This complaint is disposed of after the period so specified under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Though the case was taken up for orders by the predecessors of this Forum on 31..12..2003 the order was not prepared accordingly. This Forum assumed office on 08..02..2008 and re-heard the complaint. This O.P having been heard on 16..09..2009, the Forum on 30..09..2009 delivered the following: ORDER
SMT. S.K.SREELA, MEMBER:
The facts leading to the filing of the complaint are as follows: The complainant is a Society registered under the Travancore Cochin Literary, Scientific and Charitable Societies Registration Act 1955 and the complainant's society was registered in the year 1977 with Reg.No.S 178 of 1977. The complainant organisation is a Charitable Society and the objectives of the Society are made for the purpose of Development and Socio-Economic and Cultural Development of weaker sections of Society, especially the fishermen community and other allied activities, which are specifically mentioned in the bye-law of the organisation. The Bye-law No.6 of the complainant society says that the supreme authority of the Society will be the General Body which will consist of all those who are given membership to the Society. As usual the annual meeting of the Society for the year 2000 was held on 31st July 2000. Due notices were given to the members including the Agenda. One of the resolution is signed by 12 members to remove the full membership of Dr. John Kurian, Smt. Nalini Nayak, Sri.A.J.Vijayan and Smt.Aliamma Vijayan for acting against the interest of the complainant society and organizing the parallel association and for other grave indiscipline. The resolution removing 4 members mentioned above from full membership was passed by the 2/3rd majority of the members present. It is also decided in the General Body to co-opt, Sri. S.Rymond in the place of Sri.A.J.Vijayan, that the resolution so passed was given effect to and subsequently in August 2000 these four members filed a suit O.S.No.1513/2000 before the Principal Munsiff Court, Trivandrum for an injunction restraining the complainant herein from preventing them from exercising their rights duties and applications as the members of the complainant orgnisation and also restraining Sri.Rymond from acting as the Managing Committee member in the place of Sri.A.J. Vijayan. After 7 months the matter was heard and the court passed an order of interim injunction on 7th March, 2001 restraining the complainant society from giving further effect to the impugned resolution dated 31/7/2000 to the extent it removes the above four persons from their primary membership of the organization. At the same time the court refused injunction from restraining Sri.Rymond to act as the Managing Committee member in the place of Sri. A.J. Vijayan. The injunction order passed by the Court after 7 months has no effect since the resolution dated 31/7/2000 was given effect immediately. At the most the above four persons will have to await till the final disposal of the Original suit filed by them. When the complainant organisation is functioning peacefully and actively, Sri.A.J. Vijayan exerted undue political pressure through his direct brother, Sri.Antony Raju who was an MLA of the Ruling parties in power at the time. The Minister concerned was the leader of his party. So he obtained an order from the District Registrar of Societies (General), Thiruvananthapuram against the complainant from operating the bank account of the complainant society, with Canara Bank, Cantonment Branch, Trivandrum. 2. Based on this order the Canara Bank passed an order on 9/11/2000 stating that in the light of the instructions of District Registrar, they will not allow the operation of the Accounts. Ext.P3. This order was challenged by the complainant before the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in O.P.No.31979 of 2000 – F and the Hon'ble High Court ordered notice and granted interim stay of the order passed by the District Registrar preventing the complainant from operating the bank account on 15/11/2000, for one month, and thereafter it was extended from time to time. The last order was passed by the Hon'ble High Court on 6/8/2001 making the stay order until further orders. The stay order granted is still in force and the Original petition is pending. The District Registrar who is the first respondent in the Original petition to the Hon'ble High Court, filed a counter-affidavit before the Hon'ble Court on 6/8/2001 stating that "The first respondent (District Registrar) has not directed the Manager to freeze the Bank Account. The first respondent, Director has not directed the 2nd respondent (Canara Bank) to freeze the Bank Account". Having failed in all their futile exercise, Sri. A.J.Vijayan and other persons became desperate and tried to capture the management of the complainant society by the man power unauthorisedly and illegally. Therefore a complaint has been filed before the Police authorities by the complainant, for police protection and peaceful functioning of the complainant society. Since the very effective police protection was not given by the police, the complainant moved an O.P.No.20139 of 2001-V before the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala and that the court passed an interim direction to the Sub Inspector, Contonment Police Station, Statue, Trivandrum to afford effective police protection to the complainant and their property and the peaceful functioning of the complainant society. It is also made clear in the order that respondents 4 to 7 (Sri. A.J.Vijayan and his associates) who are membes of the society are free to come to the society for lawful purpose. However if they cause any obstruction to the peaceful functioning of the society, certainly the police will grant protection against their illegal acts also. In the light of the orders passed by the Hon'ble High Court the police authorities granted very effective police protection and thereafter there is no obstruction or trouble from Sri. A.J.Vijayan and his associates. 3. The complainant deposited a sum of Rs.4,83,000/- for 13 months on 21/11/2000 with the opposite party, the rate of interest payable is 11% per annum. The maturity amount value as on 28/11/2001 was Rs.5,43,858/-. The complainant informed the opposite party on 3rd December, 2001 that the fixed deposit made by Annexure-H has been matured on 28th November 2001 and that the complainant wish to withdraw the full amount. Accordingly the complainant requested the opposite party to pay the amount forthwith. To the surprise of the complainant and against all the norms and principles, the opposite party informed the complainant that some authorised persons like Sri. P.C. Gomez and Seeta Dasan filed a petition pretending as Co-ordinator and office bearer and that therefore it is not possible to disburse the amounts covered by Annexure-H receipt and the amount will be paid, according to the direction of a Court of law. The opposite party has no jurisdiction or power to refuse the withdrawal of the fixed deposit amount on maturity. It is only a willful authorised intention to refuse to pay and a false excuse. The unauthorised refusal to disburse the maturity amount of the Fixed Deposit constitute deficiency in service. Hence this complaint for a direction to the opposite party to disburse the full Fixed Deposit amount with interest along with compensation and costs. 4. The opposite party has filed their detailed version contending as follows: Application for fixed deposit was signed by the Co-ordinator and Treasurer of Programme for Community Organisation and hence receipt of F.D was issued accordingly. By letter dated 17/7/2001, the new office bearers informed the opposite party not to disburse the loan amount to the previous bearers and requested to stop payment by another letter dated 24/8/2001, that there is suit No.1268/2001 pending before the Hon'ble Munsiff's Court with regard to the election and status of the office bearers and a letter dated 23/10/2001 signed by Seetha Dasan was forwarded to the office and copy of the petition in Ombudsman. There being rival claim between the office bearers and that is pending to be adjudicated by the Hon'ble Civil Court, opposite party is not in a position to pay the F.D amount, unless the status of the claimant is determined by the court in pending litigation. If the Hon'ble Forum orders to make payment, the opposite party has no hesitation to make payment. This opposite party had sent letter to the claimant and to the office bearers explaining the true position. There is no lapse or denial by the opposite party. 5. The complainant has filed affidavit and marked Exts. P1 to P7. Ext. D1 has been marked on the part of the opposite party. 6. From the contentions raised the following issues arise for consideration: Whether the act of the opposite party in not disbursing the maturity amount covered by the Fixed Deposit amount justifiable? Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party? Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed for in the complaint?
7. Points (i) to (iii) : Admittedly, the complainant organisation has deposited an amount of Rs. 4,83,000/- as FD No.40155608 with the opposite party which is evident from Ext.P5. As per Ext.P5, the amount is seen received from Programme for Community Organisation PCO Centre, Spencer Junction, and the date of maturity is 28/11/2001. The complainant has requested for refund of the maturity value of the deposit amount on 3/12/2001 as per Ext.P6. As per Ext.P7, the opposite party has requested the complainant to produce a court order to know the authorized signatories of Programme for Community Organisation, so as to enable the opposite party to repay the FDR. At this juncture, the aspect for consideration is whether this act of the opposite party is proper and justifiable. 8. The complainant has pleaded in their complaint itself that the peaceful functioning of the organisation has been affected by the act of political pressure by Sri. A.J. Vijayan and he had obtained an order from the District Registrar of Societies against the complainant from operating the bank account of the complainant society, with Canara Bank, Thiruvananthapuram. The complainant had obtained a stay order as per Ext.P4 wherein interim stay has been extended until further orders. The complainant has further pleaded that Sri. A.J. Vijayan and other persons tried to capture the management of the complainant society by man power unauthorisedly and illegally, and as per the request of the complainant since effective police protection was not given the complainant moved an O.P before the Hon'ble High Court and as per the order of the Hon'ble High Court the police authorities granted very effective police protection and thereafter there is no obstruction or trouble from Sri. A.J. Vijayan and his associates. From the above it is evident that there are rival groups and internal clashes within the organisation. The opposite party as per Ext.P7 has requested a court order to know the authorised signatory. It is apparently clear from Ext.D1 that the complainant has not produced the fixed deposit receipt before the opposite party regarding the said amount produced before the opposite party any legal proof by the competent office bearers regarding the authorized signatories of the complainant. The complainant has no case that inspite of production of proper proof, the amount has not been refunded. Hence, as there are controversies within the complainant organisation, the request of the opposite party as per Ext.P7, at this circumstance, can only be considered as part of their duty in disbursement of the F.D amount and hence genuine and proper. The opposite party has never stated that the amount will not be refunded. The only demand is for the production of a Court order for proof of authorized signatory. Considering the sequence of events, we do not think, the opposite party was wrong in claiming proof. In the above circumstance we do not find any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Hence the complaint is dismissed accordingly as the complainant has failed to establish any negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.
In the result complaint is dismissed.
A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, on this the 30th day of September, 2009.
S.K. SREELA, MEMBER.
G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT.
BEENA KUMARI.A, MEMBER. ad.
O.P.No.29/2002 APPENDIX
I. Complainant's witness : NIL II. Complainant's documens: P1 : Amended latest printed bye-laws issued by the complainant dated 29/10/2000. P2 : Photocopy of letter issued by the District Registrar (General) Tvpm. P3 : Photocopy of letter issued by Canara Bank dated 9/11/2000 P4 : Photocopy of the stay order passed by the Hon'ble High Court dated 6/8/2001 P5 : Photocopy of the deposit Ind House Money Multiplier Deposit receipt No.40155608 dated 2/11/00 issued by the opposite party in favour of the complainant. P6 : Photocopy of the request made by the complainant to opposite party dated 3/12/2001
P7 : Photocopy of the reply dated 12/12/2001 issued by the opposite party to the complainant. III. Opposite party's witness : NIL
Opposite party's documents : NIL
PRESIDENT
ad.
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PRESENT:
SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT SMT. BEENA KUMARI. A : MEMBER SMT. S.K. SREELA : MEMBER O.P. No: 29/2002 Filed on 17/01/2002 Dated: 30..09..2009 Complainant: Programme for Community Organisation, a registered Society, registered under Travancore Cochin Literary Scientific and Charitable Societies Act, P.C.O. Centre, Spencer Junction, Thiruvananthapuram, represented by its Co-ordinator – Leelamma Jose. (By Adv. Premjith Nagendran)
Opposite party:
Ind Bank Housing Ltd., (A Joint Venture of Indian Bank & HUDCO), T.C.No.26/190, P.B.No.209, 1st Floor, Home Links Building, opp: G.P.O., M.G. Road, Pulimoodu Junction, Thiruvananthapuram – 695 001, represented by its Managing Director. (By Adv. P. Krishnankutty Nair) This complaint is disposed of after the period so specified under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Though the case was taken up for orders by the predecessors of this Forum on 31..12..2003 the order was not prepared accordingly. This Forum assumed office on 08..02..2008 and re-heard the complaint. This O.P having been heard on 16..09..2009, the Forum on 30..09..2009 delivered the following: ORDER
SMT. S.K.SREELA, MEMBER:
The facts leading to the filing of the complaint are as follows: The complainant is a Society registered under the Travancore Cochin Literary, Scientific and Charitable Societies Registration Act 1955 and the complainant's society was registered in the year 1977 with Reg.No.S 178 of 1977. The complainant organisation is a Charitable Society and the objectives of the Society are made for the purpose of Development and Socio-Economic and Cultural Development of weaker sections of Society, especially the fishermen community and other allied activities, which are specifically mentioned in the bye-law of the organisation. The Bye-law No.6 of the complainant society says that the supreme authority of the Society will be the General Body which will consist of all those who are given membership to the Society. As usual the annual meeting of the Society for the year 2000 was held on 31st July 2000. Due notices were given to the members including the Agenda. One of the resolution is signed by 12 members to remove the full membership of Dr. John Kurian, Smt. Nalini Nayak, Sri.A.J.Vijayan and Smt.Aliamma Vijayan for acting against the interest of the complainant society and organizing the parallel association and for other grave indiscipline. The resolution removing 4 members mentioned above from full membership was passed by the 2/3rd majority of the members present. It is also decided in the General Body to co-opt, Sri. S.Rymond in the place of Sri.A.J.Vijayan, that the resolution so passed was given effect to and subsequently in August 2000 these four members filed a suit O.S.No.1513/2000 before the Principal Munsiff Court, Trivandrum for an injunction restraining the complainant herein from preventing them from exercising their rights duties and applications as the members of the complainant orgnisation and also restraining Sri.Rymond from acting as the Managing Committee member in the place of Sri.A.J. Vijayan. After 7 months the matter was heard and the court passed an order of interim injunction on 7th March, 2001 restraining the complainant society from giving further effect to the impugned resolution dated 31/7/2000 to the extent it removes the above four persons from their primary membership of the organization. At the same time the court refused injunction from restraining Sri.Rymond to act as the Managing Committee member in the place of Sri. A.J. Vijayan. The injunction order passed by the Court after 7 months has no effect since the resolution dated 31/7/2000 was given effect immediately. At the most the above four persons will have to await till the final disposal of the Original suit filed by them. When the complainant organisation is functioning peacefully and actively, Sri.A.J. Vijayan exerted undue political pressure through his direct brother, Sri.Antony Raju who was an MLA of the Ruling parties in power at the time. The Minister concerned was the leader of his party. So he obtained an order from the District Registrar of Societies (General), Thiruvananthapuram against the complainant from operating the bank account of the complainant society, with Canara Bank, Cantonment Branch, Trivandrum. 2. Based on this order the Canara Bank passed an order on 9/11/2000 stating that in the light of the instructions of District Registrar, they will not allow the operation of the Accounts. Ext.P3. This order was challenged by the complainant before the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in O.P.No.31979 of 2000 – F and the Hon'ble High Court ordered notice and granted interim stay of the order passed by the District Registrar preventing the complainant from operating the bank account on 15/11/2000, for one month, and thereafter it was extended from time to time. The last order was passed by the Hon'ble High Court on 6/8/2001 making the stay order until further orders. The stay order granted is still in force and the Original petition is pending. The District Registrar who is the first respondent in the Original petition to the Hon'ble High Court, filed a counter-affidavit before the Hon'ble Court on 6/8/2001 stating that "The first respondent (District Registrar) has not directed the Manager to freeze the Bank Account. The first respondent, Director has not directed the 2nd respondent (Canara Bank) to freeze the Bank Account". Having failed in all their futile exercise, Sri. A.J.Vijayan and other persons became desperate and tried to capture the management of the complainant society by the man power unauthorisedly and illegally. Therefore a complaint has been filed before the Police authorities by the complainant, for police protection and peaceful functioning of the complainant society. Since the very effective police protection was not given by the police, the complainant moved an O.P.No.20139 of 2001-V before the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala and that the court passed an interim direction to the Sub Inspector, Contonment Police Station, Statue, Trivandrum to afford effective police protection to the complainant and their property and the peaceful functioning of the complainant society. It is also made clear in the order that respondents 4 to 7 (Sri. A.J.Vijayan and his associates) who are membes of the society are free to come to the society for lawful purpose. However if they cause any obstruction to the peaceful functioning of the society, certainly the police will grant protection against their illegal acts also. In the light of the orders passed by the Hon'ble High Court the police authorities granted very effective police protection and thereafter there is no obstruction or trouble from Sri. A.J.Vijayan and his associates. 3. The complainant deposited a sum of Rs.4,83,000/- for 13 months on 21/11/2000 with the opposite party, the rate of interest payable is 11% per annum. The maturity amount value as on 28/11/2001 was Rs.5,43,858/-. The complainant informed the opposite party on 3rd December, 2001 that the fixed deposit made by Annexure-H has been matured on 28th November 2001 and that the complainant wish to withdraw the full amount. Accordingly the complainant requested the opposite party to pay the amount forthwith. To the surprise of the complainant and against all the norms and principles, the opposite party informed the complainant that some authorised persons like Sri. P.C. Gomez and Seeta Dasan filed a petition pretending as Co-ordinator and office bearer and that therefore it is not possible to disburse the amounts covered by Annexure-H receipt and the amount will be paid, according to the direction of a Court of law. The opposite party has no jurisdiction or power to refuse the withdrawal of the fixed deposit amount on maturity. It is only a willful authorised intention to refuse to pay and a false excuse. The unauthorised refusal to disburse the maturity amount of the Fixed Deposit constitute deficiency in service. Hence this complaint for a direction to the opposite party to disburse the full Fixed Deposit amount with interest along with compensation and costs. 4. The opposite party has filed their detailed version contending as follows: Application for fixed deposit was signed by the Co-ordinator and Treasurer of Programme for Community Organisation and hence receipt of F.D was issued accordingly. By letter dated 17/7/2001, the new office bearers informed the opposite party not to disburse the loan amount to the previous bearers and requested to stop payment by another letter dated 24/8/2001, that there is suit No.1268/2001 pending before the Hon'ble Munsiff's Court with regard to the election and status of the office bearers and a letter dated 23/10/2001 signed by Seetha Dasan was forwarded to the office and copy of the petition in Ombudsman. There being rival claim between the office bearers and that is pending to be adjudicated by the Hon'ble Civil Court, opposite party is not in a position to pay the F.D amount, unless the status of the claimant is determined by the court in pending litigation. If the Hon'ble Forum orders to make payment, the opposite party has no hesitation to make payment. This opposite party had sent letter to the claimant and to the office bearers explaining the true position. There is no lapse or denial by the opposite party. 5. The complainant has filed affidavit and marked Exts. P1 to P7. Ext. D1 has been marked on the part of the opposite party. 6. From the contentions raised the following issues arise for consideration: Whether the act of the opposite party in not disbursing the maturity amount covered by the Fixed Deposit amount justifiable? Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party? Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed for in the complaint?
7. Points (i) to (iii) : Admittedly, the complainant organisation has deposited an amount of Rs. 4,83,000/- as FD No.40155608 with the opposite party which is evident from Ext.P5. As per Ext.P5, the amount is seen received from Programme for Community Organisation PCO Centre, Spencer Junction, and the date of maturity is 28/11/2001. The complainant has requested for refund of the maturity value of the deposit amount on 3/12/2001 as per Ext.P6. As per Ext.P7, the opposite party has requested the complainant to produce a court order to know the authorized signatories of Programme for Community Organisation, so as to enable the opposite party to repay the FDR. At this juncture, the aspect for consideration is whether this act of the opposite party is proper and justifiable. 8. The complainant has pleaded in their complaint itself that the peaceful functioning of the organisation has been affected by the act of political pressure by Sri. A.J. Vijayan and he had obtained an order from the District Registrar of Societies against the complainant from operating the bank account of the complainant society, with Canara Bank, Thiruvananthapuram. The complainant had obtained a stay order as per Ext.P4 wherein interim stay has been extended until further orders. The complainant has further pleaded that Sri. A.J. Vijayan and other persons tried to capture the management of the complainant society by man power unauthorisedly and illegally, and as per the request of the complainant since effective police protection was not given the complainant moved an O.P before the Hon'ble High Court and as per the order of the Hon'ble High Court the police authorities granted very effective police protection and thereafter there is no obstruction or trouble from Sri. A.J. Vijayan and his associates. From the above it is evident that there are rival groups and internal clashes within the organisation. The opposite party as per Ext.P7 has requested a court order to know the authorised signatory. It is apparently clear from Ext.D1 that the complainant has not produced the fixed deposit receipt before the opposite party regarding the said amount produced before the opposite party any legal proof by the competent office bearers regarding the authorized signatories of the complainant. The complainant has no case that inspite of production of proper proof, the amount has not been refunded. Hence, as there are controversies within the complainant organisation, the request of the opposite party as per Ext.P7, at this circumstance, can only be considered as part of their duty in disbursement of the F.D amount and hence genuine and proper. The opposite party has never stated that the amount will not be refunded. The only demand is for the production of a Court order for proof of authorized signatory. Considering the sequence of events, we do not think, the opposite party was wrong in claiming proof. In the above circumstance we do not find any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Hence the complaint is dismissed accordingly as the complainant has failed to establish any negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.
In the result complaint is dismissed.
A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, on this the 30th day of September, 2009.
S.K. SREELA, MEMBER.
G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT.
BEENA KUMARI.A, MEMBER. ad.
O.P.No.29/2002 APPENDIX
I. Complainant's witness : NIL II. Complainant's documens: P1 : Amended latest printed bye-laws issued by the complainant dated 29/10/2000. P2 : Photocopy of letter issued by the District Registrar (General) Tvpm. P3 : Photocopy of letter issued by Canara Bank dated 9/11/2000 P4 : Photocopy of the stay order passed by the Hon'ble High Court dated 6/8/2001 P5 : Photocopy of the deposit Ind House Money Multiplier Deposit receipt No.40155608 dated 2/11/00 issued by the opposite party in favour of the complainant. P6 : Photocopy of the request made by the complainant to opposite party dated 3/12/2001
P7 : Photocopy of the reply dated 12/12/2001 issued by the opposite party to the complainant. III. Opposite party's witness : NIL
Opposite party's documents : NIL
PRESIDENT
......................Smt. Beena Kumari. A
......................Smt. S.K.Sreela
......................Sri G. Sivaprasad | | 
