Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

A/308/2017

Peelamedu Industrial Workers Co-Op Housing Construction society Ltd., Rep. by its Director - Complainant(s)

Versus

P.Krishnan - Opp.Party(s)

M.Mariappan

13 Aug 2021

ORDER

IN THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI.

 

 

Present:    HON’BLE THIRU. JUSTICE.  R. SUBBIAH ,                                     PRESIDENT

              TMT. Dr. S.M.   LATHA  MAHESWARI,                                                 MEMBER  

 

 

F.A.No.308/2017

(Against the order passed in C.C.No.115/2014, dated 06.04.2016 on the file of the District Commission, Coimbatore. )

 

 

 THE 13^th DAY OF AUGUST 2021.

 

 

Peelamedu Industrial Workers Co-Op Housing

   Construction Society Ltd.,

No.2,  Ramasamy Naidu Nagar,

Vilankurichi  Road, Coimbatore – 45. 

Represented by its Director.                                                  Appellant/Opposite Party   

                                                  

                      Vs

 

P. Krishnan,

S/o.  Ponnuswamy,

82/66, Balamurugan Nagar,

Street No.4, Ganapathy,

Coimbatore – 641 006.                                                         Respondent/Complainant

 

Counsel for the Appellant/Complainant      :    M/s. M. Mariappan,  Advocate.    

Counsel for the Respondent/Opposite party:   Notice served & called absent.   

 

             This appeal coming before us for final hearing on 13.08.2021 and on hearing the arguments of the appellant side and on perusing the material records, this Commission made the following;-

ORDER

HON’BLE  THIRU. JUSTICE  R. SUBBIAH, PRESIDENT.   

 

1.        This appeal has been filed by the appellant/opposite party under section 15 read with section 17(1) (a) (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order of the District Commission, Coimbatore made in C.C.No.115/2014,  dated  06.04.2016, allowing the complaint.       

2.        For the sake of convenience and brevity, the parties are referred to here as they had been ranked in the District Consumer Disputers Redressal Commission, Coimbatore.   

3.         The factual matrix giving rise to the present appeal is as follows;- Before the District Commission, the case of the complainant is that he is a member of the opposite party society vide membership No.2516 .  On 07.12.2006, he availed a loan of Rs.2,50,000/- from the opposite party society vide loan account No.5/2006-07.   The complainant is liable to pay interest at the rate of 11% and penal interest at the rate of 1.5% on the above loan amount. The complainant mortgaged his property situated at No.35, Ranganathanar Street, Ganapathy in favour of the opposite party vide registration No.4116/2006 towards the above said loan amount. Further, the complainant invested Rs.17,500/- in share capital with the opposite party for availing the above loan amount.  The complainant was regularly repaying the loan dues towards the said loan amount.  In the month of May 2011, the complainant approached the opposite party to pay the entire outstanding loan amount with interest. But, the complainant was asked to pay another sum of Rs.1,51,952/- towards federation deference amount on account of misappropriation of funds committed by the Director of the opposite party society.  The complainant was left with no other option except to pay the said amount and hence under protest he  paid a sum of Rs.3,70,000/- viz.,  Rs.20,598/- towards interest, Rs.1,97,450/- towards principal  and Rs.1,51,952/- towards federation difference amount as asked by the appellant/opposite party.  The complainant paid an amount of Rs.1,51,952/- only on assurance given by the appellant/opposite party that they will return the amount on completion of the legal proceedings against the Director but the said amount was not refunded to the complainant.  Hence, the complainant issued a legal notice dated 10.03.2014  through his counsel to the opposite party calling upon to refund the above amount collected additionally from the complainant and also to pay compensation for mental agony.  Though the said notice was received by the opposite party no reply was sent by them and hence the complainant approached the District Commission with a complaint for a direction to the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.1,51,952/- collected additionally from him as Federation Difference amount with interest at the rate of 24% per annum and also to return the share capital amount of Rs.17,500/- along with compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for mental agony and sufferings with  costs.  

4.    The opposite party remained absent and was set ex-parte before the District Commission. On the side of the complainant, proof affidavit was filed along with 4 documents which were marked as Exhibits A1 to A4 before the District Commission.  

5.        After hearing the submissions made by complainant and analysing the evidences available on record, the District Commission allowed the complaint holding that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and thus allowed the complaint directing the opposite party to refund the amount of Rs.1,51,952/- to the complainant  with interest at the rate of 12% per annum and also return the share capital of Rs.17,500/- to the complainant along with compensation of Rs.10,000/- for mental agony and Rs.5000/- towards the costs. Aggrieved over the same, the opposite party has preferred this appeal praying for setting aside the order of the District Commission.  

6.        Even though, the respondent/complainant appeared through his counsel before this Commission, he has not come forward with written arguments.  Therefore   the respondent/complainant was remained absent before this Commission.    

7.      Heard the submissions made by the appellant/opposite party. It is the only submission made by the counsel for the appellant/opposite party that the District Commission has passed an ex-parte order and therefore the same has to be set aside and remitted back to the District Commission to decide the issue on merit.  During the course of argument, the counsel for the appellant/opposite party admitted that the appellant society has collected extra amount of Rs.1,51,952/- from the complainant.  Therefore, we are of the opinion that the matter could be remitted back to the District Commission on condition that the opposite party shall deposit the said amount of Rs.1,51,952/- before the District Commission within 4 weeks from the date of receipt of the order, failing which the order of the District Commission shall stand confirmed.   

8.           In the result, the appeal is allowed and the matter is remanded back to the District Commission to decide the complaint on merits after hearing both sides on condition that the opposite party shall deposit a sum of Rs.1,51,952/- before the District Commission within 4 weeks from the date of this order, failing which the appeal shall stand dismissed confirming the order of the District Commission, Coimbatore made in C.C.No.115/2014, dated 06.04.2016.   There shall be no order as to costs in this appeal.     

              

 

S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI,                                                              R. SUBBIAH,

           MEMBER.                                                                              PRESIDENT. 

 

Index: Yes/No

TCM/SCDRC/Chennai/Orders/August/2021