IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Thursday the 31st day of March, 2011
Filed on 10.11.2010
Present
- Sri. Jimmy Korah (President)
- Sri. K. Anirudhan (Member)
- Smt. Shajitha Beevi (Member)
in
C.C.No. 295/10
between
Complainant:- Opposite Parties:-
Sri. K. Sreekanth 1. Sreenarayana Dharma
Madathil Veedu Paripalana Yogam (SNDP Yogam) P.O. Punnapra, Ambalappuzha Kollam – 1, Represented by its
Taluk, Pin - 688 004 General Secretary
2. SNDP Sakha Yogam No.363
Kakkazhom, Neerkkunnam P.O.
Represented by its Secretary
3. Sri. P.G.Babu, (President, SNDP
Sakha Yogam Branch No.363),
Kopparakadav, Kakkazhom
Alappuzha
4. Sri. Bhaskaran (Secretary, SNDP
Sakha Yogam Branch No. 363) Anavelil House
Neerkkunnam, Alappuzha
O R D E R
SRI. K. ANIRUDHAN (MEMBER)
Sri. Srekanth has filed this complaint before the Forum on 10.11.2010 alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The brief facts of the allegations of the complainant are as follows The opposite parties have assured the depositor that they will give investors @ 12% interest per annum payable on monthly basis. He had deposited a total sum of Rs.40,000/- before the Sakha Yogam on 06.08.2001. The opposite parties issued pass book and they had paid interest till 09.10.2006 to him. Thereafter the opposite parties failed to pay the interest or deposited amount till date, even though he had requested to return the amount. So he filed this complaint seeking relief.
2. Notices were issued to the opposite parties. But opposite parties 2 to 4 were absent in the subsequent proceedings of this case. Considering their absence, the opposite parties 2 to 4 were declared as exparte on 21.1.2011. First opposite party entered appearance before this Forum and filed version
3. In the version, first opposite party had stated that they are non trading company registered under the Travancore Regulation 1 of 1063 adopting Indian Company’s Act, 1882 as on Association with limited liability without addition of the word limited. The SNDP Yogam has no share capital and that they have not authorized or given any consent to other opposite parties to receive amount or deposit from general public and they have no liability at all to anybody who has deposited any amount to the other opposite parties. It is further stated that there is no privity of contact of any nature existing between the complainant and first opposite party. It is further stated that they have not entered into any transaction with the complainant. The SNDP Sakaha have separate assets and liabilities. The liability of Sakhas are the liabilities of the respective Sakhas only and the SNDP Yogam are not in any amount liable for the financial liability of the Sakhas. It is further stated that they havae not authorized any Sakhas to receive deposits from general public and Sakhas are solely liable for the deposits alleged in the complaint.
3. Considering the allegations of the complainant, and contentions of the first opposite party, this Forum has raised the following issues:-
1) Whether there is any deficiently in service and negligence on the part of the
opposite parties in repayment of fixed deposit to the complainant?
2) Whether the complainant is entitled to get compensation and costs from the
opposite parties?
5. Issues 1 and 2:- Complainant has filed proof affidavit and examined him as PW1 and produced two document in evidence – Ext.A1 and A2 were marked. Ext. A1 is the Pass book issued by the opposite parties. The pass book shows that the deposited amount, interest paid etc. Ext.A2 is the authorization document.
6. On a careful study of the entire matter of this case, it can be seen that as per the assurance given by the opposite parties, the complainant had deposited the amount in the Sakha Yogam administered by the opposite parties 2 to 4. The opposite parties had paid interest to the complainant for a certain period, for the said deposited amount. Since the opposite parties had defaulted payment of interest, the complainant requested the opposite parties to return the deposited amount with interest. But the opposite parties have not shown any effort to return the same. This will amounts to cheating. The entire actions on the part of the opposite parties shows the deficiency in service and negligence by way of refusal to repay the deposited amount with interest to the complainant in time. There is no justification on the part of the opposite parties in retaining the amount with them which is payable to the complainant. The entire action of the opposite parties shows their irresponsible attitude towards this transaction. The complainant is fully entitled to get back the deposited amounts with interest from the opposite parties. On a perusal of the documents and other details, the first opposite party had no role in this transaction and cannot insist the first opposite party to pay the amounts to the complainant. Since there is deficiency in service and negligence on the part of the opposite parties 2 to 4 by way purposeful denial of repayment of deposit amount and its interest to the complainant in time, the complainant is entitled to get compensation and costs from the opposite parties and that the opposite parties 2 to 4 are jointly and severely liable for that. Considering, the whole aspects of this case, we are fully convinced that the allegations put forward by the complainant against the opposite parties are highly genuine. So the complaint is to be allowed. All the issues are found in favour of the complainant.
In the result, for the ends of justice, we hereby direct the opposite parties 2 to 4 to return the deposited amount of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand only) to the complainant along with 12% interest per annum from 09.10.2006, till the date of repayment of the entire amount to the complainant and pay a compensation of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) to the complainant for his mental agony, pain, sufferings, inconvenience and loss due to the grossest deficiency in service, culpable negligence and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties by way of purposeful refusal to return back the deposited amounts and its interest in time to the complainant, and further pay a sum of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) as cost of this proceedings and ordered that the complainant is free to proceed against the assets of the opposite parties 2 to 4 for realization of the amounts in case any default to pay the amounts by the opposite parties 2 to 4. We further direct the opposite parties to pay the above said amounts to the complainant within the 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.
Pronounced in open Forum on this the 31st day of March, 2011.
Sd/- Sri.K. Anidudhan:
Sd/- Sri. Jimmy Korah:
Sd/- Smt. N. Shajitha Beevi:
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - V. Karunakaran Nair (Witness)
Ext. A1 - Pass Book
Ext.A2 - Letter of authorization
Evidence of the opposite parties:- Nil
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite parties/S.F.
Typed by :-pr/-
Compared by:-
