Telangana

Mahbubnagar

CC/11/55

J. Venkat Swamy S/o Chinnaiah - Complainant(s)

Versus

Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society, Malleboinpally village of Jadcherla Mandal, Mahabubnagar D - Opp.Party(s)

Sri T. Damodar Rao

25 Aug 2011

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM AT MAHABUBNAGAR

Thursday, the 25^th day of August, 2011

     Present:- Sri P. Sridhara Rao, B.Sc., LL.B., President

       Sri A. Veerupakshi, B.A., LL.B., Member     

     Smt. D. Nirmala, B.Com., LL.B.,Member

C.C.NO. 55  Of   2011

Between:-

J. Venkat Swamy S/o Chinnaiah, age: 40 years, Occ: Ayurvedic Pharmacist, R/o H.No.7-9-52, Near Shivalayam, Nallakunta, Gadwal, Mahabubnagar District.                                                                                                                        … Complainant

And

Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society, Malleboinpally village of Jadcherla Mandal, Mahabubnagar District, Rep. by President/Person InchargeSri Kotla Ramachandra Reddy S/o late Chenna Reddy, R/o H.No.20-34, Gunj, Badepally, Jadcherla, Mahabubnagar District.  

                                                                                                                                                                          ... Opposite party

 This C.C. coming on before us for final hearing on 18-8-2011 in the presence of Sri T. Damodar Rao, Advocate, Mahabubnagar on behalf of the complainant and Sri K. Pratap Kumar, Advocate, Mahabubnagar for the opposite party and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Forum made the following:   

 

O R D E R

 (Sri P. Sridhara Rao, President)

1.  This is a complaint filed by the complainant under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking a direction to the opposite party to pay an amount of Rs.54,101/- along with interest @ 13% p.a. from the date of complaint to till the date of realization to the complainant and to pay Rs.25,000/- towards compensation besides costs of the complaint.

2.  The averments of the complaint in brief are that:-  The opposite party is a registered society.  In the year 2001 when the opposite party society was in financial crisis and the State Bank of Hyderabad, Badepally Branch was about to auction the properties and the building of the opposite party to realize the debts the then President of the opposite party society has approached number of individuals including the complainant and requested him to deposit some amount to pull out the society from the financial crisis.  The complainant accordingly conceded the said request and deposited an amount of Rs.13,000/- on 29-3-2001 and Rs.5,000/- on 31-3-2001 with the opposite party society under receipts No.63178 and 63179 respectively and the opposite party issued vide F.D.Nos.0802 and 0803 without any specification of time with compound interest @ 13% p.a. payable after the period of 3 years. After completion of 3 years when the complainant demanded many a times the opposite party to repay the amounts along with interest accrued thereon, the opposite party postponed the payment on one or the other pretext with an assurance that the payment will be made whenever the office building of the society is sold out or in the event of the acquisition of the building and its land by the government for the purpose of widening N.H.No.7.  Subsequently the government has acquired the lands of the society and deposited the compensation amount with the State Bank of Hyderabad, Badepally and Jadcherla Branches in the year 2008 itself.  When the amount was lying deposited with the said banks the complainant again approached the opposite party and demanded for payment.  But the opposite party did not choose to clear off the said payment.  Thereupon the complainant constrained to approach the Deputy Registrar/Divisional Cooperative Officer, Mahabubnagar for an appointment of Arbitrator for settlement of the said dispute who in turn after due enquiry issued a letter vide Rc.No.472/2009-B, dt.29-1-2011 stating that he has no jurisdiction and advised the complainant to approach the Civil Court.  Such acts on the part of the opposite party tantamount to deficiency of service as the opposite party has failed to render proper services though in fact it is the bounden duty and the obligation of the opposite party to return the amount along with accrued interest out of the special deposit made by the complainant as and when he demanded. Thus the complainant is subjected to much mental agony apart from monetary loss, as such he is entitled to claim compensation also from the opposite party.  Therefore, the complaint is filed for the aforesaid relief.     

3. The opposite party filed counter denying the averments of the complaint and stated that the opposite party never collected any such amounts from anybody and never gave any such F.Ds., to anybody much less to the complainant, that in fact the opposite party has no such power to collect F.Ds.  It is further stated that the brother of the complainant has created all those alleged F.Ds., and deposits in the name of the complainant and got filed the present complaint to gain wrongfully and to extract money from the opposite party on coming to know that the opposite party is receiving certain amount for the land acquired for expansion of National Highway and thus there are no bonafides on the part of the complainant in filing the present complaint and therefore the complaint is liable to be dismissed with costs.   

4. Thereupon the complainant in support of his claim filed his affidavit evidence and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-5.  On the other hand, the opposite party filed their affidavit evidence in support of their contentions and got no documents marked.  

5.  The points for determination now are: 

1. Whether is there any deficiency on the part of the opposite party in  rendering service to the complainant as alleged?

    (ii)  Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief sought for by him? 

    (iii)  To what effect? 

6. Point No.1:- The learned counsel for the complainant contended that the opposite party being a registered society having accepted the deposits of Rs.13,000/- and Rs.5,000/- on 29-3-2001 and 31-3-2001 from the complainant under Exs.A-1 and A-2 receipts and having issued two respective F.Ds., in the name of Sahakara Vikasa Podupu Patrams as under Exs.A-3 and A-4 for safeguard of the society funds agreeing to repay the amount after completion of 3 years along with interest @ 13% and ultimately failed to fulfill its promise inspite of repeated demands made by the complainant. Such act on the part of the opposite party tantamount to deficiency of service and therefore the complainant is entitled for the relief sought for by him. 

7. The contention of the learned counsel for the opposite party is that the opposite party never collected any such amount and never issued any such F.Ds., to the complainant. A perusal of the recitals of Exs.A-1 and A-2 clearly goes to show that the complainant deposited a sum of Rs.13,000/- and Rs.5,000/- on 29-3-2001 and 31-3-2001 respectively with the opposite party.  Exs.A-3 and A-4 also clearly goes to show that basing on Exs.A-1 and A-2 the opposite party issued such F.Ds., under the style of Sahakara Vikasa Podupu Patrams on the same dates agreeing to repay the amount after completion of 3 years along with interest @ 13%.  If really there is no truth in the case of the complainant there will not be any need for him to approach the Deputy Registrar/Divisional Cooperative Officer, Mahabubnagar for the settlement of the claim between him and the opposite party. But it is evident from Ex.A-5 that issued by the Deputy Registrar/Divisional Cooperative Officer which clearly establishes the case of the complainant that when the opposite party failed to fulfill its promise made as under Exs.A-3 and A-4 F.Ds., the circumstances have forced him to approach the said Deputy Registrar/Divisional Cooperative Officer, Mahabubnagar for settlement of the claim.  It is also evident from Ex.A-5 that the Deputy Registrar after making due enquiry advised the complainant to approach the Civil Court in this regard.  So, it is clearly established by the complainant that he made such deposits with the opposite party and the opposite party in turn issued Exs.A-3 and A-4 agreeing to repay the amount covered there under after completion of its 3 years with interest @ 13%.  It is the case of the complainant that he deposited such amounts for safeguard of the society funds, that the opposite party society even after getting sufficient amount towards compensation from the government under acquisition of the lands of the opposite party also the opposite party is evading its liability covered under Exs.A-3 and A-4 F.Ds.  So, it appears that there is some truth in the case of the complainant that the opposite party society failed to comply the demand made by the complainant though it is liable to make such payment as agreed under Exs.A-3 and A-4 F.Ds.     8.  At this stage the contention of the learned counsel for the opposite party is that in fact the brother of the complainant by name one Laxmaiah who worked as paid secretary of the opposite party between the years 1989 and 2006 created the said documents to cause loss to the opposite party and got filed the present complaint through the complainant with false allegations on coming to know that the opposite party is receiving certain amount for the land acquired for the expansion of National Highway and therefore the complainant is not entitled for the relief sought for by him.  But the opposite party except taking such a plea did not produce any other oral or documentary evidence in that regard.  In the absence of any such positive proof it cannot be said that the complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands. Therefore it is a fact clearly established by the complainant that the opposite party having accepted the deposit made by the complainant as under Exs.A-1 and A-2 receipts and having issued Exs.A-3 and A-4 F.Ds., agreeing to repay the amount covered there under with interest @ 13% ultimately failed to repay the same to the complainant. Therefore, we find that such act on the part of the opposite party in not refunding the amount from such a long period amounts to deficiency of service.  Hence, for the reasons stated above we hold that the complainant had succeeded in establishing the ground of deficiency of service against the opposite party. The point is answered accordingly in favour of the complainant and against the opposite party.     

   9. Point No.2:- In view of the finding given on point No.1 we hold that the complainant is entitled for refund of the amount as claimed by him together with some reasonable compensation and costs of the proceedings from the opposite party and the opposite party is liable to comply the same.  The point is answered accordingly in favour of the complainant and against the opposite party. 

10. Point No.3:- In the result, the complaint is allowed in part directing the opposite party to refund to the complainant the total sum of Rs.54,101/- towards the principal amount deposited by him and the interest accrued thereon as claimed by him and Rs.5,000/- towards compensation and Rs.500/- towards costs of the complaint within one month from the date of the present order.   

        Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 25^th day of August, 2011.    

 

    I agree                                          I agree                                                          

 

MEMBER                                      MEMBER                             PRESIDENT                       

  Appendix of evidence

      List of Witness examined

On behalf of Complainant:                          On behalf of Opposite Party:   

- Nil -                                                                      - Nil -                                       

List of documents marked:-

On behalf of Complainant:-    

Ex.A-1: Original Receipt, dt.29.3.2001.

Ex.A-2: Original Estimation, dt.31.3.2001. 

Ex.A-3: Original Receipt, dt.29.3.2001.   

Ex.A-4: Original Receipt, dt.31.3.2001.  

Ex.A-5: Copy of Letter, dt.29.1.2011.       

On behalf of OP:                   

         - Nil -      

                                                                                                            PRESIDENT                                                                                                                                                                                                 

Copy to:-                                                                                              

  1  . Sri T. Damodar Rao, Advocate, Mahabubnagar on behalf of the complainant.

2. Sri K. Pratap Kumar, Advocate, Mahabubnagar for the opposite party.