BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI Dated this the 30th day of December, 2009
Present: SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN PRESIDENT SMT.SHEELA JACOB MEMBER SMT.BINDU SOMAN MEMBER C.C No.136/2009 Between Complainant : Baiju, Vallathu House, Koottar P.O, Santhipuram – 685 552, Idukki District. And Opposite Parties : 1. The Secretary, Koottar Service Co-operative Bank Limited No.K.373, Koottar P.O, Pin 685 552, Idukki District. (By Adv: V.C.Sebastian) 2. The Joint Registrar(General), Co-operative Societies, Idukki, Painavu P.O, Pin 685 603, Idukki District.
O R D E R SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT)
The complainant is a member of the opposite party bank as membership No.8203. The complainant entered into a group deposit scheme in the opposite party bank, which was expired on 21/02/2006. So he is entitled to get an amount of Rs.11,670/- as per No.28 of the deposit scheme. Since there was some dues in the bank to the member Santhosh as membership No.12340 and the complainant was the guarantor of that member, the opposite party deliberately denied the payment to the complainant. It is the duty of the opposite party to claim the due amount from the person who is having dues to the bank. The complainant is entitled to get Rs.11,670/- on 21.01.2006 as the scheme was over. So the complaint is filed for getting the entire amount Rs.11,670/- with interest from the date of expiry of deposit scheme that is on 21.02.2006 and also for getting compensation for mental agony caused to him to the tune of Rs.99,999/- under various heads.
2. As per the written version, the opposite party admitted that the complainant is a member of the opposite party bank as membership No.8203 in Koottar Branch. As deposit No.28, he deposited 8 instalments each Rs.2,000/- to the opposite party. The scheme consists of 50 monthly instalments of Rs.2,000/- each. But the complainant was the guarantor of one Santhosh Pulinthara who is also a group depositor of the same deposit scheme as No.12/01 and a bond was created to the bank. The amount was received by the said Santhosh Pulinthara, but he omitted to repay the amount promptly. So the amount became due. It was informed to the complainant several times, to repay the amount taken by the said Santhosh Pulinthara directly and also through notice. The guarantor is also equally responsible for the amount received by the applicant. As per the application filed by the complainant, the opposite party decided to disburse the amount after regularising the dues of the guarantor and this was informed to the complainant on 14.08.2009. The complainant was having dues to the bank a a guarantor in the amount received by the said Mr.Santhosh Pulinthara. When the dues were settled, the opposite party informed the complainant that the opposite party is ready to disburse the amount to the complainant. So there is no deficiency in the part of the opposite party. 3. The point for consideration is whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to ?
4. The evidence consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and Exts.P1 and P2(series) marked on the side of the complainant and the oral testimony of DW1 and Exts.R1 to R10 marked on the side of the opposite parties.
5. The POINT :- Complainant joined in the group deposit scheme(chitty) of the opposite party bank and remitted Rs.2,000/- each for 8 months. After that he was not able to continue the same. The group deposit/chitty period was expired on 21.1.2006. But the opposite party did not give back the amount deposited by the complainant stating that there was a due of another depositor named Mr. Santhosh, in which the complainant was a surety. Complainant was examined as PW1, the bank issued a letter to PW1 stating that they are ready to give back the amount deposited by PW1, on 18.8.2009 after filing complaint before this Forum which is marked as Ext.P1. The reply issued from the 1st opposite party as per Right to Information Act is marked as Ext. P2(series) in which it is stated that, the complainant made default in payment after 8 instalments. But PW1 was a surety of Mr. Santhosh, who was having due in the account. So the opposite party could not disburse the amount. PW1 deposed that the bank never informed the matter that there were dues in the account of Santhosh to the bank. The matter was noticed to the complainant only when Ext P2 reply received. So the bank is entitled to give the interest. DW1 is the Ist opposite party. As per DW1, the petitioner filed a complaint to the bank director board on 28/11/08 which is Ext. R1 in which it is written that the money was not disbursed because of the due in the account of Santhosh. The application for availing money from the bank in the deposit scheme, signed by the said Santhosh is marked as Ext. R4(a) in which there are three sureties also signed, the 3rd surety is the complainant. The bond for disbursing money to Santhosh is Ext. R4(b) in which also complainant has signed as a surety. Ext. R5(series) is the copy of the postal receipt for the registered letter issued to the complainant and to the other sureties of the said Mr.Santhosh, dated 16.5.2006. Ext. R8 is the decision taken by the opposite party bank dated 29.11.08, for the complaint filed by PW1 for getting the money. Ext. R10 is the copy of the Account ledger of Mr. Santhosh as member No.10340 in which the account is closed on 14.8.2009.
So while perusing the evidence, it is clear that the complainant was aware as per Ext. R1 application dated 28.11.2008 that there was due of money in the account of Mr. Santhosh. The complainant was the surety of him. As per Ext. R5 postal receipt, the opposite party had issued Registered letter to the complainant on 16.5.2006. It is signed by the complainant in Ext. R4 (a) and (b) which are the application for receiving money and the bond for the said Santhosh respectively. So the complainant knows that he is a surety of Mr. Santhosh. As per Ext. R10, copy of the ledger account of Santhosh, it is closed on 14.8.2009. The opposite party issued Ext. P1 letter on 18.8.09 stating that the complainant can receive the account. The due amount was paid on 14/8/2009. So the opposite party issued letter to the complainant for receiving the amount. So there is no deficiency is seen from the part of the opposite party. But the complainant is entitled to get the amount with interest from 14.8.09 because the dues were cleared on that day. Hence the petition partially allowed. The opposite party is directed to disburse the amount deposited by the complainant to the complainant with 12% interest from 14.8.2009 within 30 days of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the amount shall carry 12% interest per annum from the date of default. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 30th day of December, 2009 Sd/- SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT) Sd/- I agree SMT.SHEELA JACOB(MEMBER) Sd/- I agree SMT.BINDU SOMAN(MEMBER) APPENDIX Depositions : On the side of Complainant : PW1 - V.Baiju On the side of Opposite Party : DW1 - S.Jameela Exhibits: On the side of Complainant: Ext.P1 - Notice dated 18.08.2009 issued by the Ist opposite party Ext.P2(a) - Photocopy of Letter No.C.R.P.3207/09 dated 2.06.2009 issued by the 2nd opposite party to Sri.K.K.Narayanan, Tharavadu, Nedumkandam under Right to Information Act, 2005 Ext.P2(b) - True copy of letter dated 16.05.2009 issued by the Ist opposite party to Sri.K.K.Narayanan, Tharavadu, Nedumkandam under Right to Information Act, 2005 Ext.P2(c) - Group Deposit Scheme - Rules On the side of Opposite Party : Ext.R1 - True copy of complainant's letter dated 28.11.2008 addressed to the Ist opposite party Ext.R2 - True copy of Notice dated 18.08.2009 issued by the Ist opposite party Ext.R3 - Group Deposit Scheme - Conditions Ext.R4(a) - Group Deposit Scheme – Application for receiving money Ext.R4(b) - Bond for receiving money Ext.R5 - Photocopy of Postal Receipts Ext.R6 - Photocopy of Despatch Register Ext.R7 - True copy of Bond for receiving money Ext.R8(series) - Photocopy of Minutes Book Page Nos.280 and 281 Ext.R9 - True copy of Decision No.147 of Ist opposite party's Board Meeting heldon 29.11.2008 Ext.R10 - True copy of Ledger Account in respect of Santhosh Pulinthara
| | HONORABLE Sheela Jacob, Member | HONORABLE Laiju Ramakrishnan, PRESIDENT | HONORABLE Bindu Soman, Member | | 
