DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM PALAKKAD

Dated this the 22nd day of October 2010 .

Present : Smt. Seena.H, President

: Smt. Preetha.G. Nair, Member

: Smt. Bhanumathi.A.K, Member

C.C.No.21/2010

V. Subhadra

W/o. Mohanachandran

21/468 “Deepthi”

Vennakkara

Palakkad. - Complainant

(Party in person)

Vs

1. Palakkad District Gold Workers Industrial

Co-operative Society Ltd

No.C.IND(P) 133

Palakkad- 14.

(Rep. By its Secretary)

2. Administrator & Industries Extension Officer

Palakkad (M) District Gold Workers ICS Ltd

District Industries Centre

Palakkad. - Opposite parties

(Adv. Viju.K. Raphel)

O R D E R

By Smt. Seena.H, President.

The case of the complainant :

Complainant deposited an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- vide receipt No.1208 on 04/09/2007 with the 1^st opposite party. The due date of deposit No.1208 was on 04/09/2008. The deposit was for a period of one year at an agreed interest rate of 10.5% per annum. Complainant demanded the deposit together with interest several times personally and through notice, but the 1^st opposite party has not taken any steps to release the amount. Hence the complaint.

1^st opposite party has not filed version. 2^nd Opposite party filed version contending the following. That the complainant is not a consumer. He was the creditor of the society.

- 2 -

Further contended that any dispute between the society and a creditor according to Kerala Co-operative Societies Act 1969, shall be referred to the Co-operative Societies Act 1969 shall be referred to the Co-operative Arbitration Court & no civil or Revenue courts have any jurisdiction in respect of such claims as per Section 100 of Kerala Co-operative Societies Act. 2^nd Opposite party further submitted that the Secretary of 1^st Opposite party, Palakkad District Gold Workers Industrial Co-operative Society Ltd No. C IND(P)133 is not alive. As 1^st opposite party became dormant with effect from February 2008, the then Board members had handed over the charge to 2^nd opposite party who has been appointed by the Registrar of Industrial Co-operative Society. 2^nd opposite party submitted that many other cases against the society filed by various parties are also pending before the Registrar for disposal.

Complainant and 2^nd opposite party led evidence in the form of affidavits. Exhibit A1 was marked on the side of the complainant. No documentary evidence on the side of the opposite parties.

The issues that arise for consideration is

1. Whether complaint is maintainable before the forum?

2. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?

3. If so, what is the reliefs and cost complainant is entitled to?

Heard both parties and gone through the evidence on record.

Issue No.1

The stand of 1^st opposite party is that forum lacks jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as there is a specific bar under Section 69 and 100 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act 1969. The said controversy has been settled by the Honourable Apex Court in Secretary, Thirumurugan Co-operative Society Vs M. Lalitha, 2004 CPJ1(SC) wherein it is specifically held that Consumer forum has jurisdiction to entertain disputes of this nature. Hence the 1^st point is answered in favour of the complainant.

• 3 -

Issue No.2

The case of the complainant is that opposite parties failed to disburse the deposited amount with interest after the matured date.

1^st opposite party who has served as Secretary of the Society for a period has appeared before the forum and has submitted that it was taken over by 2^nd opposite party and hence to delete his name from the party array.

We find that 2^nd opposite party has not raised any contention with respect to the merits of the case. Only contention was with respect to the maintainability of the case before the Forum.

Exhibit A1 the fact that the complainant has deposited an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- for 1 year with agreed rate of interest as 10.5%. Due date of the deposits is 04/09/2008. 2^nd Opposite party has no case that the said amount was paid.

Non return of the deposited amount after the maturity date amounts to clear deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.

In view of the above stated facts and circumstances of the case, we find that there is deficiency in service on the part of 2^nd opposite party in not returning the deposited amount to the complainant after the period of maturity .

In the result complaint allowed. 2^nd opposite party is directed to pay complainant

1. an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- along with interest rate 10.5% per annum from the date of deposit till date of order and

    

2. Rs.1,000/- as cost of proceedings.

- 4 -

Order to be complied within one month from the date of order failing which the whole amount shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of order till realization.

Pronounced in the open court on this the 22nd day of October, 2010

PRESIDENT (SD)

MEMBER (SD)

MEMBER (SD)

APPENDIX

Date of filing: 19/02/2010

Witness examined on the side of Complainant

Nil

Witness examined on the side of Opposite party

Nil

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant

1. Ext. A1 – Season Deposit Receipt No. 1208 of Palakkad Dist. Gold Workers Indl. Co-op Society for Ltd for Rs.1,00,000/- due date on 04/09/2008

    

Exhibits marked on the side of the Opposite Party

Nil

Forums Exhibits

Nil

Costs

Rs. 1,000 (Rs. One thousand only)