IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Friday the 30th day of January, 2009
Filed on 19.12.2006
Present
- Sri. Jimmy Korah (President)
- Sri. K. Anirudhan (Member)
- Smt. Shajitha Beevi (Member)
in
C.C.No.273/06
between
Complainant:- Opposite Parties:-
Smt.Sandya Rajasekharan, 1. Sri.Sanalkumar,
Chellamadom, Punnappara Village, Paingannoor Veedu,
Vandanam Muri, Alappuzha. Punnappara Village,
(By Adv.G.B.Panicker) Vandanam Muri, Alappuzha
2. Smt.Retnamma, W/o Sanalkumar,
Paingannoor Veedu,
Punnappara Village,
Vandanam Muri, Alappuzha,
(By Adv. Cheriyan Kuruvila)
O R D E R
SRI.JIMMY KORAH (PRESIDENT)
The case of the complainant is as follows: - The complainant deposited an amount of Rs.96000/-(Rupees ninety six thousand only) with the opposite parties. On expiry of assured time of repayment, the opposite parties executed an agreement in favor of the complainant offering to pay back to the complainant the above said amount with 15% interest within three months from the date of execution of the said agreement. Even on expiry of the said three months, and the complainant's repeated requests, the opposite parties did not make it a point to give the complainant back her money. Got aggrieved on this, the complainant approached this Forum seeking the release of said amount from the opposite parties amongst other relief.
1. Notice was sent. The opposite parties turned up and filed version. According to the opposite party, the dispute emerged consequent to an agreement with the opposite party. With the result, the complaint is not maintainable before this Forum. The complainant ought to have approached a civil court, the complainant submits. The complainant never deposited any amount with the opposite party as she claimed. The opposite parties never accepted any amount from the complainant as well. The said complaint has been filed for no reasons. The complaint is only to be dismissed with cost to the opposite parties.
2. On the side of the complainant, the complainant herself and one of the witnesses of the agreement were examined as PW1 and PW2, and the document Exbt A1 was marked. Exbt A1 is the agreement executed by the opposite parties in complainant's favor. On the side of the opposite parties the 1st opposite party was examined as Rw1, and the document Exbt B1 was marked. Exbt B1 is the copy of the complaint, the opposite parties lodged before the superintendent of Police.
3. Taking into account, the contentions of the parties, the questions arise before us for considerations are:-
(I) whether the complainant deposited any amount with the opposite party? (2) if yes, whether the opposite parties are liable to give back the same?
4. According to the complainant, she deposited an amount of Rs 96000/-(Rupees ninety six thousand only) with the opposite parties. The opposite parties, as against their assurance declined to pay back the same so far till the filing of the present compliant. The version of the opposite party is a total denial of the complainant's case. The opposite parties asserted that the complainant has never deposited any amount with them nor did they accept the same. The agreement as produced to have been executed by the opposite parties was forged and manipulated. A group of people forced the opposite parties to affix their signatures on several blank papers and one of such blank paper was misused and manipulated by the complainant as Exbt A1. We meticulously went through the materials put on record by the parties. The immediate short question arises for consideration is whether the complainant deposited the amount with the opposite party. The complainant produced Exbt A1 agreement to prove the same. The opposite parties denied the deposit and the agreement. However, the signature affixed therein was admitted, though they do not subscribe to its content. The explanation offered by the opposite parties for affixing signatures on the blank paper seems unconvincing. In order to further their version the opposite parties produced Exbt B1 which virtually added to the acceptability of the complainant case. Going by the Exbt B1, it is evident that the opposite parties were accepting deposits, but defaulted repayments. Barring from bare statement that they were forcibly made to affix their signature, no useful evidence has been let in to prove their said version. A copy of the complaint seemingly lodged before the police has been produced. We are of the view that Exbt B1 is inconsequential to prove the case of the opposite party, more so, when the outcome of the said complainant still remains a mystery.
5. The strategy of 'so called financiers' is not something new to this Forum. On an anxious consideration of all the relevant inputs, we are of the considered view that it is safer and more prudent to accept the case advanced by the complainant which inspire confidence in our mind.
6. In view of the facts and findings herein above, the opposite parties are ordered to pay back the complainant an amount of Rs.96000/-(Rupees ninety six thousand only) with 12% interest from the date of filing of this suit till its realization. The opposite parties are further ordered to pay an amount of Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as compensation to the complainant. The opposite parties and their assets are jointly and severally liable for the said amount. The opposite parties shall comply with the order within 30 days of date of this order.
In the result, the complainant is allowed accordingly. The parties are left to bear their own cost.
Pronounced in open Forum on this the 29th day of January 2010.
Sd/-Sri. Jimmy Korah
Sd/-Sri. K. Anirudhan
Sd/-Smt. N. Shajitha Beevi
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - Sandhya (Witness)
PW2 - Asokan Pillai (Witness)
Ext. A1 - The agreement to prove that she deposited Rs.96,000/- with the
opposite parties.
Evidence of the opposite parties:-
RW1 - Sanalkumar (Witness)
Ext. B1 - The copy of the complaint filed before the Superintendent of Police.
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite Parties/S.F.
Typed by:- k.x/-
Compared by:-
