IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Wednesday the 30th day of March, 2016
Filed on 23.04.2015
Present
- Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
- Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
- Smt. Jasmine.D. (Member)
in
C.C.No.127//2015
Between
Complainant:- Opposite parties:-
Smt. Mini 1. S.N. College Staff Co-operative. Bank Ltd.
W/o. Jayakumar No. A 756, S.N. Puram P.O, Cherthala
Ambadi House Rep. by its President & Secretary
S.L. Puram P.O
Alappuzha 2. Sri. K. Anirudhan
(By Adv. Jeena Abraham) President & Principal
S.N. College Staff Co-operative. Bank Ltd
No. A 756, S.N. Puram P.O, Cherthala
3. The Secretary
S.N. College Staff Co-operative. Bank Ltd
No. A 756, S.N. Puram P.O, Cherthala
4. Sri. P Sunil, Board Member
- do -
5. Smt. Kunjamma George, Board Member
- do -
6.Smt. V. Ushadevi, Board Member
- do -
7.Smt. Dhanya Viswam
- do -
(By Adv. Gurudas H Mallan – for
Opposite parties 1 to 7)
8.Smt. Indira Shaji, W/o. Shaji
Nedumkandathil, S.L. Puram P.O
(By Adv. Priyadarshan Thampi)
O R D E R
SRI. ANTONY XAVIER (MEMBER)
The complainant’s case in precise is as follows:- The complainant on being allured by the tempting assurances and offers tendered by the opposite parties on 26th November 2011 deposited an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- with the opposite parties. The opposite parties issued an FD receipt to the said effect. The complainant had been offered 10% interest per annum to the said deposit. However, the opposite parties were prepared to pay the interest only up to February 2014. The complainant on 17th July 2014 requested the opposite parties in writing to hand back the deposit amount with interest to the complainant. On 27th November 2014, the complainant approached the opposite parties in person with the same request. On 19th January 2015, the complainant caused to issue a lawyer notice to the opposite parties calling upon them to make the payment of the deposit amount. Notwithstanding all these, the opposite parties were absolutely reluctant to effect any payment to the complainant. Got aggrieved on this, the complainant approached this Forum for compensation and relief.
2. On notices being served, the opposite parties turned up and filed versions. The opposite parties 1 to 7 jointly filed version and the 8thopposite party filed a separate version. The contention of the opposite parties 1 to 7 is that the 8th opposite party was the Secretary of the 1st opposite party Bank, and while in the said tenure of her duty, she had stashed away exorbitant amount of the 1st opposite party, and a case as to the same is pending against her in the court of law. As a result o the 8th opposite party’s misappropriation of the 1st opposite party’s fund, the opposite parties are facing rigorous financial crisis. Though they are very much prepared to repay the F.D amounts to its creditors, they are not in a position to disburse the same to them. In this context, the complaint is only to be dismissed, the opposite parties 1 to 7 vehemently contend. The 8th opposite party contends that once the 8th opposite party was one of the office bearers of the 1st opposite party. Now she is not in service. Whatever official acts she had committed, while in service, all are under the instructions of her superiors. The 8th opposite party has been unnecessarily made a party to the complaint. She has no knowledge as to the claim put forth by the complainant, and she could not be held liable for the same. The complaint is liable to be dismissed, the 8th opposite party strongly contends.
3. The evidence of the complainant consists of his proof affidavit, and the documents Exts. A1 to A4 were marked. The opposite parties, save filing the version, did not make it a point to adduce any other evidence.
4. Keeping in mind the contentions o the parties, the issues that crop up for consideration before us are:-
(1) Whether the opposite party’s service is deficient?
(2) Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief?
5. We perused the materials placed on record by the parties. On a bare perusal of the complainant and the version filed by the opposite party, it appears that the opposite parties have neither denied nor disputed the factum of deposit by the complainant. The opposite parties 1 to 7’s contention is that the amounts deposited by the parties have been put away the 8th opposite party. With the result, the opposite parties plunged into indescribable financial crunch and are not in a position to effect repayment of the amount to their creditors. The 8th opposite party contends that now she is a total stranger as to the other all opposite parties. She has no sort awareness as to the claim put forth by the complainant. She is not in service with regard to the 1st opposite party. Thus on a perusal of the entire materials placed on record before us, we are of the merited view that the complainant has deposited the amount with the opposite parties, and the same has not been still repaid. It is significant to notice that the 8th opposite party is indisputably not an office bearer of the 1st opposite party. If any disputes is there between the opposite parties 1 to 7 and the 8th opposite party with regard to the misappropriation of any amount as seems to be alleged by the other opposite parties against the 8th opposite party, the complainant cannot/should not be caused to bear the brunt of the same for the simple reason that she had deposited her hard-earned money with the opposite parties. In this context, looking into the available materials and circumstance placed on record by the parties, we are of the considered view that there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties 1 to 7. Needless to say, the complainant is entitled to relief. The complainant is liable to be allowed and we do so.
6. In the result the complaint is allowed. The opposite parties 1 to 7 are directed to refund the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakh only) with 9% interest from the date of this to the complainant. The opposite parties 1 to 7 are further directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.1,500/- (Rupees one thousand five hundred only) each as compensation and cost. The opposite party shall comply with the order of this court within 30 days of receipt of this order. Before parting we with particular emphasis observe that the opposite parties 2 to 7 in persons or their assets shall not be liable to the complainant.
The complaint is allowed accordingly.
Pronounced in open Forum on this the 30th day of March, 2016.
Sd/- Sri. Antony Xavier (Member) :
Sd/- Smt. Elizabeth George (President):
Sd/- Smt. Jasmine.D. (Member) :
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
Ext. A1 - Fixed Deposit Receipt of Rs.2,00,000/-
Ext. A2 - Copy of Letter dated 17.07.2014
Ext. A3 - Legal notice with postal receipts
Ext. A4 - Postal Acknowledgement cards (6 Nos.)
Evidence of the opposite parties:- Nil
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite parties/S.F.
Typed by:- pr/-
Compared by:-
