KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL NO: 1124/2004 JUDGMENT DATED:30-09-2010 PRESENT JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT K.S Ajayan, Kalapuraykal, Ochanthuruth.P.O, : APPELLANT Cochin-682 508, Ernakulam. (By Adv: Sri.P.N.Mohanan) Vs. Secretary, Ochanthuruth Service Co-operative- Bank Ltd. No.72, Ochanthuruth.P.O, Ernakulam. : RESPONDENT Cochin-682 508. (By Adv:Sri.H.B.Shenoy & Others) JUDGMENT JUSTICE SHRI.K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The appellant is the complainant in OP.167/04 in the file of CDRF, Ernakulam. The complaint stands dismissed. 2. The case of the complainant is that he was a subscriber of the Soubhagya Deposit Scheme started by the opposite party, Co-operative Bank. In the printed notices issued, the opposite parties had provided the details of the deposit scheme. The complainant remitted Rs.300/- per month expressing his willingness to remit at the above rate for 25 years. According to the said scheme the complainant would get Rs.8,28,000/- at the end of 25 years. After 19 years and 9 months the opposite party stopped the scheme and asked the depositors including the complainant to withdraw the amount admissible and reinvest the same in some other scheme. It is alleged that the act of the opposite parties in stopping the scheme amounted to deficiency of service. A direction is sought permitting the complainant to contribute to the scheme at the rate of Rs.300/- per month till the end of the 25th year and to pay the maturity value of Rs.8,28,000/- and also for a direction that the opposite party cannot discontinue the scheme without the permission of the subscribers. 3. The opposite parties had filed version pointing out that the scheme was started in January 1984 for the welfare of the members of the Society. The scheme and its conditions were duly notified to all the members. The scheme was started on 21/4/1984. By the 2003 the continuation of the scheme became not feasible due to considerable reduction in the rate of interest, vide the orders of the Government of Kerala and the Registrar of Co-operative Societies. Under the above circumstances, the opposite party decided to terminate the scheme with effect from 1/1/2004. The decision was duly intimated to all the members requiring them to transfer the deposits standing to their credit to any other deposit scheme as they may desire on or before 31/12/2003. All the members except the complainant acted upon the above direction. The decision of the opposite party was challenged by the complainant before the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies and Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies. All the above statutory authorities negatived the complainant’s plea. Hence the complainant is not entitled to raise the matter again. It is pointed out that there is no breach of any provisions and that there is no deficiency of service. As per clause 10 of the terms and conditions governing the scheme the opposite party is entitled to close the scheme at any time. The reduction in rates of interest has resulted in a situation that the scheme could not be continued. The statutory authorities under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act 1969 have approved the decision of the opposite party. 4. The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PW1, DW1, Exts.A1 to A10 and Ext.B1. 5. It is pointed out that as per Ext.A1 the printed notice explaining the details of the scheme, the interest would work out at 9.2%. Ext.A1 only contains mention the amounts at maturity. If Rs.600/- is deposited after 5 years the amount returned will be Rs.874/-. If Rs.3000/- is deposited after 25 years the amount returned will be Rs.27,600/-. The above would work out to interest at 9.2% per annum. It is the case of the complainant that he had started an SB account and given instruction to debit at the rate of Rs.300/- per month in the Soubhagya Scheme. For 19 years and 9 months the amount was debited from the SB account at the rate of Rs.300/- per month. He had also taken a loan of Rs.58,300/- on the strength of the Soubhagya Deposit and refunded the amount with interest at 17%. According to him he was permitted to subscribe at the rate of Rs.300/- per month for 25 years so that he will get the maturity value of Rs.8,28,000/-. Subsequently after 19 years and 9 months the scheme was terminated. 6. We find that the Forum has noted that there is nothing to show that the account of the complainant in the scheme was for a period of 25 years. Ext.A1 did not contain any undertaking that the deposit would remain in force for 25 years. What has been mentioned in Ext.A1 is only the information that the prospective depositors will get back the amount after each year, and the minimum period mentioned is 5 years. Till the date fixed in the intimation the depositors they will be getting interest as promised ie 9.2%. Hence evidently there is no loss as such to the depositors. Opposite parties cannot be forced to continue the scheme when the interest rates have gone down. It is the case of the opposite party that till the date mentioned in the intimation the complainant would get the interest as promised and thereafter at the rate as in SB accounts. As point out by the Forum, there is no undertaking on the part of the opposite parties that the complainant can remit the amount up to 25 years. Even apart from the condition in Ext.B1 we find that the opposite parties are fully empowered to stop such schemes if the same were found to be not viable especially as the complainant has not sustained any loss. On the other hand, he has received a higher rate of interest. In the circumstances the order of the Forum is sustained and the appeal is dismissed. Office will forward the LCR to the Forum along with the copy of this order. JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT VL. | 
