Kerala

Idukki

CC/361/2016

Sam George - Complainant(s)

Versus

Secretary The Vellathooval Service Co-operative Bank - Opp.Party(s)

30 Aug 2019

ORDER

DATE OF FILING : 21.12.2016

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI

Dated this the 30^th day of August, 2019

Present :

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR PRESIDENT

SMT. ASAMOL. P MEMBER

CC NO.361/2016

Between

Complainant : Sam George,

Malayilayya House,

Adimali P.O., Idukki.

(By Adv: Shiji Joseph)

And

Opposite Party : 1. The Secretary,

Vellathooval Service Co-operative

Bank Ltd. No.K.71,

Vellathooval P.O.,

Idukki.

(By Adv: Naiju Ravindranath)

2. The Joint Registrar,

Co-operative Societies,

Painavu P.O., Idukki.

 

O R D E R

 

SMT. ASAMOL. P., MEMBER

 

Case of the complainant is that,

 

Complainant had joined a scheme launched by the opposite party bank in the name of Mangalya Recurring Deposit Scheme. As per this scheme, the opposite party bank offered that if any one deposit Rs.63/- per month for 20 years, they will get one lakh rupees on its maturity. Before launching this scheme, opposite party bank given wide publicity by placing banners and offered that this scheme will help the parents who have female child, for their marriage. On believing the words and enticing the offers of the opposite party bank authorities, complainant happened to join in this scheme as A/c No.M.D.1 and remitted the instalments at the rate of Rs.63/- per month from 20.2.1997 to 5.6.2016. For this purpose, opposite party issued a passbook and they entered each remittance on the respective dates. The complainant paid 238 instalments out of 240 instalments. The scheme will be completed by March 2017 and complainant's daughter is entitled to get Rs.1 lakh from the opposite party.

(cont......2)

- 2 -

On 7.12.2016, the complainant approached the opposite party for remitting the 239 instalment. But the opposite party refused to receive the payment. The non-acceptance of instalment is gross deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. At the time, opposite party withdrawn from their offers and denied to allow the offered amount of the scheme.

 

Alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice against the opposite party, complainant filed this petition for getting the reliefs such as to direct the opposite party to fulfil their offer and return the offered amount of Rs.1 lakh to the complainant along with interest from 20.3.2017 and cost and compensation.

 

Upon notice, opposite party entered appearance and filed detailed reply version, by admitting the launching and conducting of such a scheme. In their version, opposite party further contended that as per the terms and conditions stated in the pass book of their scheme, opposite party has the authority to amend the condition and also having power to take appropriate decision. Opposite party further contended that the General Body of the bank convened on 31.12.2015, discussed the losses happened to the bank on the maturity of the above discussed scheme and based on the current financial condition, they decided to repay the deposited amount along with reasonable rate of interest. As per the decision of the General Body of the opposite party bank, they are decided to allow Rs.50,901/- to the member who completed their instalments in this scheme.

 

The evidence adduced by the complainant by document. Complainant filed the passbook issued by the opposite party. This document is marked as Ext.P1.

 

Heard both sides.

 

The points that arose for consideration is whether there is any deficiency in service from the part of opposite party and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to ?

 

The POINT :- We have heard the counsels for both the parties and had gone through the evidence on record. From the evidence, it is seen that the scheme launched by the opposite party is admitted by them and they prayed for allowing them to disburse the amount to the concerned account holders as per the decision taken by the General Body of the opposite party held on 31.12.2015, opposite party intimated their members due to recession in

(cont......3)

- 3 -

economy, they cannot continue this scheme and they decided to close the scheme by offering the maximum interest rate to the deposited amount which the opposite party provided to the fixed deposit. The notice was served to the complainant also. But evenafter taking decision of the General Body on 31.12.2015, they continued the scheme and received the amount till its maturity. Eventhough, the opposite party stated their financial incapacity to fulfil their offers in this scheme, they failed to produce any evidence to substantiate their plea. No copy of the minutes or copy of the decision taken by the General Body is produced before the Forum. Moreover, no passbook containing the terms and conditions of the scheme also produced before the Forum to convince the contention in the reply version. Under this circumstances, the Forum is not in a position to consider the contention of the reply version. It is the bounden duty of the opposite party to adduce sufficient evidence to strengthen their version. On the basis of above discussion, the Forum is of a considered view that, the version of opposite party is unsustainable and hence rejected. Moreover from the evidence, it is seen that, opposite party collected the monthly instalments of the scheme till its maturity in the year 2017, eventhough they decided to stop the scheme on 31.12.2015. This is the clear instances of unfair trade practice and the opposite party cannot be evaded from their liability.

 

Hence the complaint allowed. Opposite party is directed to give the offered amount of Rs.1 lakh to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the amount shall carry 12% interest per annum from the date of default till its realisation. No order to cost or compensation.

 

Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 30^th day of August, 2019

 

Sd/-

SMT. ASAMOL. P, MEMBER

 

 

Sd/-

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR, PRESIDENT

 

 

 

(cont......4)

- 4 -

 

 

APPENDIX

Depositions :

Nil.

Exhibits :

On the side of the Complainant :

Ext.P1 - passbook issued by the opposite party.

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Nil.

 

 

Forwarded by Order,

 

 

 

SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT