Kerala

StateCommission

A/12/72

N.P.VASANTHI - Complainant(s)

Versus

R5AMAPURAM SERVICE COOPERATIVE SOCIETY - Opp.Party(s)

G.S.KALKURA

30 Jun 2016

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION SISUVIHARLANE VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 

APPEAL NO.72/12

JUDGMENT DATED : 30.06.2016

 

(Appeal filed against the order in CC.No.37/05 on the file of CDRF, Malappuram order dated : 29/07/2011)

PRESENT

SRI.K.CHANDRADAS NADAR   : JUDICIAL MEMBER

SMT.A.RADHA                         : MEMBER

 

APPELLANT

N.P.Vasanthi,

W/o.Devidas,

Pournami, Angadippuram.P.O

Malappuram District

 

(By Adv.Sri.G.S.kalkura)

Vs

RESPONDENTS

1.Ramapuram Service Co-operative Bank Ltd,

Rep.by the Secretary,

Ramapuram Service,

Co-operative Bank Ltd,

Ramapuram

 

2. The President,

Ramapuram Service Co-operative bank Ltd,

Ramapuram

 

(By Adv.Sri.Narayan.R)

JUDGMENT

SRI.K.CHANDRADAS NADAR   : JUDICIAL MEMBER

                                Complainant in CC.No.37/2005 in the CDRF, Malappuram is the appellant. The complainant deposited Rs.1,00,000/- in the opposite party bank on 18.08.1999 in fixed deposit for 61 months. The monthly interest due on the deposit was agreed to be adjusted in the recurring deposit in the name of the complainant. It is alleged in the complaint that while so the complainant approached the bank to withdraw an amount of Rs.9,000/- from the fixed deposit. The opposite parties informed the complainant that the request was not permissible till the maturity of the fixed deposit. On the advice of the opposite parties the complainant availed loan of Rs.9000/- on the security of the fixed deposit. The FD receipt was surrendered to the bank on 19.01.2000. Accordingly, the Opposite parties sanctioned a loan of Rs.9000/- to the complainant. On the maturity of the fixed deposit, the position was that after deducting the loan with interest the complainant was entitled to receive Rs.1,84,000/-.But instead of paying the said amount opp.parties maintained that the complainant had availed a loan of Rs.90,000/- and the complainant was entitled to a balance amount of Rs.3630/-. Hence alleging deficiency in service the complainant approached the consumer forum.

        2.     The opposite parties admitted deposit of Rs.1,00,000/- on 18.08.1999 alleged in the complaint but maintained that loan of Rs.90,000/- was granted to the complainant. On disbursal of the loan entries were made in the cash book and day book kept in the bank. On maturity of the fixed deposit loan was closed and the amount due on the loan account was Rs.1,57,187/-.So the complainant was entitled to receive only Rs.3630/-. There was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

        3.     After remand of the case to the consumer forum additional evidence was recorded. The evidence consisted of the deposition of the complainant as PW1, two witnesses examined on the side of the opp.parties as DWs 1 & 2, Exts.A1 to A6 marked on the side of the complainant and Exts.B1 to B11 marked on the side of the opp.parties. Finding no deficiency in service on the part of the opp.parties the consumer forum dismissed the complaint. Hence this appeal by the complainant.

        4.     It is admitted that the complainant had deposited Rs.1,00,000/- as fixed deposit on 18.08.1999 for 61 months. According to the complainant thereafter she availed a loan of Rs.9000/- only on the security of the fixed deposit. According to the opp.parties the loan availed was Rs.90,000/- and not Rs.9000/-. This is the only point in dispute. The appellant / complainant has produced only Ext.A2 receipt acknowledging receipt of the fixed deposit receipt allegedly issued by the opp.parties to prove that Rs.9000/- only was given as loan. The consumer forum rightly expressed doubt regarding the genuineness of this document especially in the background of allegation of misappropriation by the officers of the opp.party bank. On the contrary the opp.parties have produced Ext.B2 copy of request for loan of Rs.90,000/- by the complainant. Ext.B3, copy of voucher for the same amount, Ext.B3 (b) original receipt for Rs.90,000/- issued by the complainant, Ext.B4 copy of the day book kept in the bank . Ext.B5 copy of cash book kept in the bank. Ext.B6 copy of deposit loan ledger, Ext.B7 fixed deposit ledger. Ext.B8 copy of recurring deposit register, Ext.B9 computer print of personal ledger relating to the complainant and Ext.B10 copy of cash receipt dated 19.01.2000. In all the relevant documents consistently Rs.90,000/- is mentioned as the loan amount.

        5.     The allegation in the complaint is that the belief of the complainant is that the staff of the opposite party bank might have falsified and fabricated evidence and misappropriated the amount due to the complainant. It appears that the belief stems from the fact that first information report was filed against the Secretary and another official of the opp.party’s bank and criminal case was registered before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court – 1, Perinthalmanna. It is alleged that the secretary of the first opp.party bank Smt.M.K.Leelavathi was a close relative of the complainant. According to the opp.parties the complainant filed the frivolous case at the instance of the officials dismissed from service including Smt.M.K.Leelavathi. But on the allegation that only Rs.9,000/- was given to the complainant as loan instead of Rs.90,000/- allegation of embezzlement of unds by fabrication of evidence is involved which cannot be adjudicated by the consumer forum. It is for the appropriate criminal court to consider that aspect. The issue of falsification of accounts fabrication of document and consequent loss alleged to be caused is a matter to be adjudicated by the Civil Court for no deficiency in service is involved. The available documents referred to indicate that complainant had in fact availed a loan of Rs.90,000/- particularly Ext.B2 application for loan filed by the complainant was for Rs.90,000/-. In short, the consumer forum rightly concluded that the complainant was not able to prove her case convincingly. The appeal is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed but without costs.

K.CHANDRADAS NADAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

 

A.RADHA                         : MEMBER

 

 

Be/

 

 

 

KERALA STATE

CONSUMER DISPUTES

 REDRESSAL COMMISSION

SISUVIHARLANE

 VAZHUTHACADU

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 

APPEAL NO.72/12

JUDGMENT DATED : 30.06.2016

 

 

                                      Be/