KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

APPEAL No. 07/2009

JUDGMENT DATED:  12-01-2010

PRESENT:

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU            :  PRESIDENT

APPELLANT

1.      The Ramapuram Service Co-operative Bank Ltd.,

          Represented by its Secretary,

          Ramapuram, Malappuram District.

2.      The President,

          Ramapuram Service Co-operative Bank Ltd,

          Ramapuram, Malappuram District.

                    (Rep. by Adv. Sri. Narayan. R)

                    Vs

RESPONDENT

N.P. Vasanthi, aged 49 years, W/o Devidas,

Pournami, Angadipuram P.O.,

Perinthalmanna Taluk, Malappuram District.

(Rep. by Adv. Sri. Saju. S.A)

JUDGMENT

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU:   PRESIDENT

                        The appellants are the opposites parties in OP No. 37/05 in the file of CDRF, Malappuram.  The appellants are under orders to pay a sum of Rs. 1,84,000/- with interest at 9% from 18-09-2004 and costs of Rs. 1,000/-.

          2.          The case of the complainant is that she deposited a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- with the opposite party bank on 18-08-1999 in fixed deposit for 61 months with interest at the rate of 14% and with maturity date as 18-09-2004.  The interest that accrued monthly is to be adjusted in the recurring deposit.  She availed a loan of Rs. 9,000/- on the security of the fixed deposit receipt, which has surrendered on 19-01-2000.  The interest on the above loan amount was 16%.  After maturity the complainant was to receive Rs. 2,00,000/- from which Rs. 16,000/- is to be deducted towards the loan of Rs. 9,000/-.  Hence she was to get back Rs. 1,84,000/- on 18-09-2004, the maturity date.  The opposite party has declined to pay the amount contending that the loan amount was Rs. 90,000/-.  It is alleged that the records produced by the opposite party are of fabricated.  She has claimed the amount with interest and compensation of Rs. 20,000/-.

          3.          The opposite party in the version has admitted the fact of fixed deposit, but contended that the loan taken was a sum of Rs. 90,000/-.  It is contended that in all the records of the bank the amount is 90,000/-; as well as in the loan agreement and the voucher issued for receipt of Rs. 90,000/-.  After adjusting the loan and interest the balance was only Rs. 3,630/-.  It is also alleged that the complainant is a very close relative of Smt. M.K. Leelavathi, the then Secretary of the opposite party and that the Secretary along with some other officials were suspended for misappropriation and malpractices and were dismissed from service in July, 2001.  A criminal case is pending against them before JFCM-I, Perintalmanna.

          4.          The evidence adduced consisted of the proof affidavits filed by the respective parties and Ext.A1 to A6 and B1 to B11.

5.                 The Forum has relied on Ext.A2, the receipt for having handed over the FD receipt as security for the loan wherein the loan amount is mentioned Rs. 9,000/-.  Ext.A2 is the original receipt where the amount is written as 9,000/- in figures and words.

          6.          Ext.A1 is the copy of the police complaint dated 12-07-2001 filed by the appellants against P.P. Sreedevi, M.K. Leelavathi and K.N. Leela.  Mrs. P.P. Sreedevi is mentioned as the former Secretary of the bank and M.K. Leelavathi, Assistant Secretary and K.N. Leela, Accountant.  It is mentioned in the police complaint that they are under suspension and that they have misappropriated the funds of the bank making use of the Fixed Deposit Accounts, Savings Bank Accounts, Cheques and Chitty Accounts of their relatives.  The offences alleged are u/ss 120(B), 409, 420, 464, 468, 471 r/w Section 34 IPC.  Ext.A6 is the FIR dated 14-07-2001 registered under the above sections against the above persons alleging defalcation of Rs. 12,67,593/-.  The opposite parties have also produced the copies of the loan application wherein the amount is mentioned as 90,000/- and the receipt for payment of Rs. 90,000/- and the copies of Day Book, Ledger etc. wherein also the amount is mentioned as Rs. 90,000/-.  The complainant has filed proof affidavit but was not cross-examined.  The Counsel for the appellant has sought further opportunity to cross-examine the complainant.  We find that the case is of the year 2005 and the matter has been disposed of after 3 years.  There is nothing on record to show that opportunity was not provided to the opposite parties before the Forum.  On a perusal of the documents produced and the proof affidavits filed, we find that there is nothing to disbelieve the complainant although it is alleged in the version that the then Secretary was Smt. M.K. Leelavathi.  It is seen from the copies of the criminal complaint etc. produced that she then was the Assistant Secretary and the Secretary was one Smt. Sreedevi.  Further, it is the complainant who has produced the copies of the criminal complaint and FIR.  The opposite parties/appellants has not produced any records to the defalcation perpetuated by the officials of the bank.  Even if the amounts were misappropriated it is for the bank to compensate the depositors.  In the circumstances, we find that there is no patent illegality in the order of the Forum.

 In the result, the order of the Forum is sustained and the appeal is dismissed.

                                  JUSTICE K.R. UDAYABHANU    :  PRESIDENT