KERALA STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL COMISSION

                    VAZHUTHACADU    THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

       APPEAL  NO: 244/2009

                            JUDGMENT DATED: 30-12-2010

PRESENT

SMT. VALSALA SARANGADHARAN    : MEMBER

SHRI.M.V. VISWANATHAN                    : JUDICIAL MEMBER

SRI.M.K. ABDULLA SONA                      : MEMBER

1.         SNDP Yogam Branch No.395,

Paravoor North, Punnapra,

Alappuzha, R/by its Secretary.

2.         Sr.G.Parthan Ithithara,

Punnapra  North P.O,

Paravoor Village, Alappuzha.

3.         Sri.P.K.Kumaran, Asariveli,

Punnapra  North P.O,

Paravoor Village, Alappuzha.

4.         Sri.Thankappan, Kaithakkad,

Punnapra  North P.O,

Paravoor Village, Alappuzha.

5.         Sri.Kishore Kumar,

Mangalappally,

Paravoor, Punnapra  P.O,

Alappuzha.

6.         Sri.Purushan,

Kanakasseri,

Paravoor, Punnapra  P.O,

Alappuzha.

7.         Sri.Bhuvanendran, Sasthankad,                                    : APPELLANTS

Veli from Pathinettil Chira,

Paravoor, Punnapra  P.O,

Alappuzha.

8.         Sri.T.Haridas, Aswathy,

Aswathy Bhavanam, Alissery Ward,

Alappuzha.

9.         Divakaran, Punnakkapally,

Paravoor, Punnapra  P.O,

Alappuzha.

10.       Thankappan,

Karwappadamchira,

Paravoor, Punnapra  P.O,

Alappuzha.

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

            Vs.

1.         Sri.Raveendran,

Lakshmi Nivas,

Paravoor P.O, Punnapra  

Alappuzha.

2.         Remadevi, W/o Raveendran,

Lakshmi Nivas,

Paravoor P.O, Punnapra  

Alappuzha.

3.         Sri.Ajay Kumar,

Lakshmi Nivas,                                                       : RESPONDENTS

Paravoor P.O, Punnapra  

Alappuzha.

4.         Jayalekshmi,

Machingal, (Viji Nivas),

Paravoor, Punnapra  

Alappuzha.

5.         Mini Viswanathan,

Machingal, (Viji Nivas),

Paravoor, Punnapra  

Alappuzha.

                                       JUDGMENT

SHRI.M.K. ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER

This appeal prefers from the order in CC.218/07 dated:28/10/2008 passed by the CDRF, Alappuzha.  The appellants are the opposite parties prefers this appeal from the impugned order passed by the Forum below.  The respondent is the complainant in the above appeal.  In brief the complainant has filed a complaint before the Forum below alleging deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.  The allegation of the complainant is that the opposite parties have conducted deposit scheme by name, Dr.Palppu Smaraka Mandira Fund.  The above scheme will be disbursed upon the expiry of 30 months by giving Rs.35,000/- to the subscribers.  The monthly subscription amount was Rs.100/-.  There is a lot on 20^th day of every month, the subscriber who gets the lot will be given an amount of Rs.3000/- and thereafter there is no liability to pay the balance amount by them.  Having specified the repudiation of the 1^st opposite party Sakha Yogam, the complainant agreed to make deposit.   As such they have deposited amount at the rate of Rs.2700/- each on different dates with the opposite parties.  At the time of the deposit the opposite party had agreed to return the amounts upon the expiry of 36 months and that the opposite party issued passbook to the complainant after bringing the amount.  But the opposite parties have not refund the amounts with agreed interest to the complainants.  Hence the complaint.

The opposite parties 1 and 3 entered appearance and filed version.  The other opposite parties were absent and they were set exparte.  The opposite parties 1 and 3 contended that the complainant have not right to ask the amount within the stipulated period of 30 months.  They further stated that since the complainants have taken the deposit amount jointly they are not entitled to get any damage.  It is stated since they will not come within the purview of the banking, the complainants may not be as consumer.  If any amount are payable to the complainant the 1^st opposite party alone is liable for that and 3^rd opposite party is not at all liable for the said amount.  The complainant adduced documentary evidence Exts.A1 to A5 and 5 passbooks and there is no evidence adduced by the opposite parties.  The Forum below discussed the matter in detail and directed the opposite parties to return the total deposit amount of Rs.13,500/- to the complainants with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from 20/11/2004 till the date of realization of the entire amounts and pay an amount of rs.20,000/- as compensation to the complainants and also ordered to pay Rs.2000/- as cost of the proceedings.  On this day this appeal came before this commission for final hearing.  The counsel for the appellant argued on the grounds of appeal memorandum that the order passed by the Forum below is not in accordance with the law and evidence as also the Forum did not appreciate the documentary evidence at the time of calculating the total amount of the deposit.  They also contended that the Forum below wrongly found that the complainant is a consumer as per the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act.  It is submitted that he is a member of the ‘Karayogam’ and the scheme was launched including the member (complainant).  There is no representation for the respondents, we this commission heard in detail and peruses the entire evidence adduced by the complainant from the case bundle. There is no evidence adduced by the appellant/opposite parties.  We are not seeing that the grounds argued by the learned counsel for the appellant is not sustainable as per the provisions of law and evidence.  It is nothing but a deposit mobilization done by the opposite parties.  Complainants are members of the ‘Karayogam’.  But this is not a contribution given by the complainants for the construction of the Dr.Palppu Memorial building and the appellant/opposite parties did not produce any documents including the article of memorandum, by lots or minute books etc.  The complainants are the consumers as per the Consumer Protection Act and the Act of the appellant/opposite parties are nothing but  deficiency of service and they are liable to pay the amount deposited by the complainants and also liable to pay interest etc.  But we are pointing out that one point has been wrongly interpreted and assessed by the Forum below.  As per Exts.A1 to A5 the complainants only deposited up to the date of 24/2, these periods are different from Ext.A1, A2, A3, A4 and A5.

Complainant is only liable to get the refund of the amount already paid by them respectively as per Ext.A1 to A5.  The Forum below found this amount as Rs.13500/-.  The amount becomes Rs.13,500/- only after reaching maturity.  How can the Forum below direct the opposite party to refund the maturity amount to the complainant.   We decided to interfere in this portion of the order passed by the Forum below.

In the result this appeal is allowed in part we modified this order as per the following directions.  The opposite parties are directed to return the amount which they collected from the complainants as per Ext.A1 to A5 with an interest rate of 18% from the date of the last payment made by each complainant and also direct to pay a cost of Rs.1000/- to each complainants.  We set aside the order to pay compensation of Rs.20,000/-.  This appeal is disposing in accordance with the above modifications.  Both parties are directed to suffer their own respective cost.  All points of the appeal discussed one by one are answered accordingly.

M.K. ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER

VALSALA SARANGADHARAN: MEMBER

M.V. VISWANATHAN: JUDICIAL MEMBER

VL.