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. 26/2005 Filed on 18/01/2005 Dated: 15..03..2010 Complainant: Shrirang D. Chavan, T.C.40/1666, Attakulangara, Manacaud –P.O., Thiruvananthapuram – 695 009. (By Adv. A. Narayana Moorthy)
Opposite parties:
President, Thiruvananthapuram Taluk Taxi Drivers' Co-operative Society No. T.723, Poojappura, Thiruvananthapuram. Secretary, ..do.. ..do.. (Opp. Parties 1 & 2 by Adv. K.R. Haridas)
S. Padmanabhan, T.C.41/213, Manacaud, Manacaud P.O., Thiruvananthapuram – 695 009.
This O.P having been heard on 27..02..2010, the Forum on 15..03..2010 delivered the following:
ORDER
SMT. BEENA KUMARI. A., MEMBER:
The complainant in this case is a businessman. The 1st & 2nd opposite parties are the President and Secretary of the Thiruvananthapuram Taluk Taxi Drivers' Co-operative Society No.T.723. The 3rd opposite party is the Pigmy Agent of the above said society, the 3rd opposite party had joined the complainant in the "Dinavardhini Nikshepam" scheme controlled by the Thiruvananthapuram Taluk Taxi Drivers' Co-operative Society, Poojappura, Thiruvnanthapuram. On 7/2/2002 the complainant joined the above said scheme with A/c No.9516 and the 3rd opposite party had collected the amounts like Rs. 100/-, 200/-, 300/- etc daily from the complainant. The above said amounts were recorded in the A/c card by 3rd opposite party, given by the society in complainant's presence. The complainant had withdrawn a sum of Rs. 9,000/- from the society twice earlier. On 25/3/2003 the complainant approached the society for withdrawing the amount which the complainant had deposited in the society by the above scheme. As per the complainant, he had invested an amount of Rs.23,600/- till 24/3/2003. But the society did not take any action to refund the amount to the complainant. And the opposite party informed the complainant through an advocate's notice that there was only Rs.200/- in his account. From the advocate's notice, the complainant came to know that the opposite parties misappropriated the complainant's whole investment. Hence this complaint.
2. In this case the 1st and 2nd opposite parties filed version. Main contention of the opposite parties are that the complaint is not maintainable before this Forum since it is hit by Section 69 of the Co-operative Societies Act. The 1st & 2nd opposite parties were not the President and Secretary at that relevant period when the cause of this complaint has arisen. At that time the Society was under the administrative Rule. The opposite parties stated that the complainant opened the account in February 2002 and an amount of Rs. 9012/- was withdrawn by the complainant on 12/9/2002 and the balance amount is only Rs. 200/-. The opposite parties further stated that the complaint is not maintainable since it is barred by limitation. Hence they prayed for the dismissal of the claim with compensatory cost.
3. The 3rd opposite party in this case remain ex-parte.
4. The complainant has filed proof affidavit and examined him as PW1 and through him marked Ext. P1 document. The 2nd opposite party in this case filed proof affidavit for himself and for and on behalf of 1st opposite party also and examined him as DW1. From the side of opposite parties 3 documents were marked as Exts. D1 to D3. 5. Issues raised for consideration are:
Whether the complaint is barred by limiation? Whether there is deficiency in service from the side of opposite parties? Whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs and costs?
6. Point No.(i) : In this case the opposite parties contended that the complaint is barred by limitation. The opposite parties argued that the last transaction between the complainant and opposite parties was on 12/09/2002. The complaint was filed on 17/01/2005 ie., after two years of last transaction. As per Ext. D3 ledger copy produced by the opposite party, complainant has withdrawn the amount on 12/09/2002. Thereafter there is no transaction between the complainant and the 1st and 2nd opposite parties. But as per Ext. P1 the "Dinavardhini Nikshepam" card the complianant had remitted amounts till 24/3/2003. The complainant filed this petition before this Forum on 17/01/2005 ie., within time. Hence this complaint is not barred by limitation. The complaint is filed within the limitation period and therefore maintianable. 7. Points (ii) & (iii): In this case the opposite party has admitted that the complainant had joined the "Dinavardhini Nikshepam Scheme" and an amount of Rs.9,012/- was withdrawn on 12/09/2002 after retaining the balance in the account as Rs.200/- only. To prove that contentions the opposite party has produced Exts. D1 to D3. Ext. D1 is the attested copy of the application form filled and signed by the complainant. Ext. D2 is the attested copy of cash voucher dated 12/09/2002, as per this document the complainant had received Rs.9,012/- from the Society on 12/09/2002 from his account. Ext. D3 is the attested ledger copy of the account of the complainant. As per this document the complainant has been withdrawn Rs. 9,012/- from his account on 12/09/2002 and the balance seen in his account is only Rs.200/-. And thereafter there is no transaction shown in that document. But the document marked as Ext. P1 shows that the complainant has remitted the amounts till 24/03/2003. Ext. P1 is the original "Dinavardhini Nikshepam Card". In this document we can see that the complainant had remitted the amount from 3/9/2002 to 24/03/2003. As per the document the total amount paid by the complainant is Rs.19,700/-. But the complainant himself admitted at the time of cross examination that Rs. 9,012/- പിന്വലിച്ച dateഓര്മ്മയുണ്ടോ ? (Q) ഇല്ല (A) Rs.9,012/- പിന്വലിച്ചത് 12/09/2002 ആണെന്നു പറയുന്നു. (Q) ആയിരിക്കും (A). Accordingly the amount remitted by the complainant from 12/9/2002 to 24/3/2003 is Rs.18,500/- only. The complainant remitted the amount through the 3rd opposite party, the agent of the 1st and 2nd opposite party. The opposite parties did not deny the contention of the complaint that the amount was remitted by the complainant through 3rd opposite party. The opposite parties have no case that the 3rd opposite party is not their agent. And moreover at the time of cross examination the 2nd opposite party answered the question put forwarded by the complainant that അന്നത്തെ ssociety യുടെ aauthorities ഉം 3rd opposite party യും ചേര്ന്ന്പരാതിക്കാരന്റെ പണം അപഹരിച്ചു എന്നു പറയുന്നു? (Q) ശരിയാണോ എന്ന് അറിയില്ല.. Since there is no specific affirmative answer from the side of opposite parties to the above it is clear that the opposite parties themselves are not sure whether there is any misappropriation from their part or not. The opposite parties contended that Ext. P1 is a fabricated document and they never issued such a card to the complainant. But the opposite parties did not prove that contention. We can see the emblem and seal affixed on the card. And also in this case the opposite parties never denied that the 3rd opposite party is not their agent or he did not remit the amounts to the bank collected from the complainant. In this circumstance we are of the view that the 3rd opposite party collected the money from the complainant and endorsed the same in the card and he did not remit the amount to the bank. There is no denial from the side of opposite parties 1 & 2 that the 3rd opposite party is not their agent. The opposite parties 1 & 2 are vicariously liable for the act of their agent - 3rd opposite party. Hence the complaint is allowed.
In the result, the 1st and 2nd opposite parties are in their official capacity directed to pay Rs.18,500/- with 9% interest per annum from 24/3/2003 till the date of payment. Time for compliance one month from the date of receipt of the order. The opposite parties shall pay Rs.1,500/- as costs to the complainant. 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, this the 15th day of March, 2010. BEENA KUMARI. A., MEMBER.
G.SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT.
S.K. SREELA, MEMBER. ad.
O.P.No. 26/2005 APPENDIX I. Complainant's witness: PW1 : Shrirang D. Chavan II. Complainant's documents: P1 : Account card III. Opposite parties' witness: DW1 : Satheesan IV. Opposite parties' documents: D1 : Photocopy of the application form filled and signed by the complainant. D2 : " cash voucher dated 12/9/2002. D3 : " of the ledger.
PRESIDENT.
| 
