KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPEAL No. 661/2023
JUDGMENT DATED:12/07/2024
(Against the Order in C.C. 61/2021 of DCDRC, Palakkad)
PRESENT:
SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER
SRI. RADHAKRISHNAN K.R. : MEMBER
APPELLANT/ COMPLAINANT:
Dr.P.S.Sukumaran Pilla, S/o.Late C.R.Sankarapilla, Ananta Living,
Prithvi, Thenur (PO), Parali, Palakkad - 678 613.
(By Adv. Narayan.R)
Vs.
RESPONDENTS/ OPPOSITE PARITES:
- The Secretary, Palakkad Rural Co-Operative Society Ltd., Near Stadium Bus Stand, Kunnathur Medu, Palakkad – 678 013.
- The President, The Palakkad Rural Co-Operative Society Ltd., Near Stadium Bus Stand, Kunnathurmedu, Palakkad – 678 013.
JUDGMENT
SRI. AJITH KUMAR D.: JUDICIAL MEMBER
This is an appeal filed by the complainant in CC.61/2021 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Palakkad [District Commission in short].
2. On 16/12/2022 the District Commission had dismissed the complaint. Being aggrieved by the order of the District Commission the appeal has been filed.
3. The complaint was filed against the Secretary and President of Palakkad Rural Co-operative Society Ltd., alleging deficiency in service. The complainant had deposited Rs.1,00,000/- with the society. Later on 06/06/2024 the fixed deposit was renewed with effect from 06/02/2023. On 06/02/2015, on expiry of the period in the fixed deposit the complainant had requested the opposite parties to withdraw the deposit but the opposite parties told the complainant that the period of deposit may further be extended for 6 months. After completion of six months the complainant had again approached the opposite parties for disbursement of the amount. But the opposite parties had refused to close the account by stating that the period of the deposit may further be extended for two more years. Opposite parties were prolonging the matter and they refused to close the account. They had misused their official position and committed forgery of the records in the Society with a view to gain undue enrichment. The opposite parties had extended the period of the deposit by forging documents under the pretext that the complainant had applied for extension. The act committed by the opposite parties had caused mental agony and financial loss to the complainant. Hence he would seek for a direction to the opposite parties to disburse the amount in deposit along with interest and compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.15,000/- as litigation expenses.
3. Though notices were served on the opposite parties they remained absent and were set ex parte.
4. The complainant had sworn an affidavit in lieu of chief examination but no documentary evidence was produced by the complainant. The complaint was dismissed by the District Commission on the reason that the complainant did not cause production of any documents with respect to the deposit.
5. Impugned by the aforesaid order the appeal has been filed.
6. In the appeal memorandum the following grounds were raised. The order passed by the District Commission is against the law and facts. The District Commission ought to have appreciated the evidence of the complainant in accordance with the intention of the Consumer Protection Act. The District Commission did not consider the fact that the opposite parties remained absent and the pleadings in the complaint and the affidavit filed by the complainant stands unchallenged. The order of the District Commission is ambiguous and vague. The District Commission ought to have appreciated the evidence by adopting the principle of preponderance of probabilities that the complainant suffered bitter experience on account of the conduct of the opposite parties as alleged the complaint.
7. Notices issued to the respondents were served but they did not appear before this Commission. The records from the District Commission were called for.
8. Heard the counsel for the appellant, perused the records received from the District Commission.
9. The complainant is a consumer who was constrained to approach the District Commission since the opposite parties had refused to close the fixed deposit and disburse the cash. The complainant had sworn an affidavit in lieu of chief examination in support of the pleadings contained in the complaint. There was nothing on record to discredit the complainant with respect to the facts alleged in the complaint as sworn in the affidavit in support of the complaint. The District Commission ought to have provided one more opportunity to the complainant to cause production of the receipts with regard to the deposit made in the society run by the opposite parties. A hyper technical approach is undesirable when a Consumer Commission conducts an adjudication with regard to the grievance of the consumer. Unfortunately the complainant had to approach the District Commission for closing his fixed deposit as the opposite parties has declined to return the deposit. In the complaint there are serious allegations raised against the opposite parties with regard to the manipulation and fraudulent acts committed by them in their capacity as the Secretary and President of the Co-operative Society. After the dismissal of the complaint two rounds of litigations were over. The complainant had filed another complaint before the District Commission as CC.110/2023 for the very same relief. The above complaint was dismissed on the reason that the second complaint was barred by resjudicata. The complainant had also filed a review application before the District Commission as on 64/2023 which was also dismissed on the reason that the District Commission could not find any error apparent on the face of the record. The appellant had caused production of the copies of the orders of the District Commission and the fixed deposit receipt dated 06/02/2015.
8. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the dismissal of the complaint would in fact worked out against the interest of a consumer. The consumer Commission is constituted with a view to safeguard the interest of the consumer. The version of the complainant stands unchallenged. If the District Commission was not satisfied with the evidence tendered by the complainant the matter could have reopened and given one more chance to the complainant to cause production of the documentary evidence. Disposal of a complainant on technical reasons without addressing the real controversy would work out against the intention of the Consumer Protection Act. On evaluating the aforesaid circumstances we hold that the dismissal of the complaint on technical grounds is liable to be reversed. The pleadings in the complaint that the opposite parties had extended the period of the deposit and declined to issue renewed receipts was not properly considered by the District Commission. Therefore we are of the view that the matter can be remanded back to the District Commission with a direction to provide further chance to the complainant to cause production of the documentary evidence in support of his claim. We find merit in the appeal and inclined to allow the appeal.
In the result the appeal is allowed. The order dated 16/12/2022 in CC.61/2021 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Palakkad is set aside and remanded the matter to the District Commission with direction to provide a chance to the complainant to adduce further evidence. Parties shall bear their respective cost.
AJITH KUMAR D.: JUDICIAL MEMBER
RADHAKRISHNAN K.R. : MEMBER
