KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPEAL No.112/2023
JUDGEMENT DATED: 27.02.2023
(Against the Order in C.C.No.344/2021 of CDRC, Thiruvananthapuram)
PRESENT:
HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. K. SURENDRA MOHAN | : | PRESIDENT |
SRI. RANJIT R. | : | MEMBER |
SMT. BEENA KUMARY A. | : | MEMBER |
SRI. K.R. RADHAKRISHNAN | : | MEMBER |
APPELLANT:
| Thiruvananthapuram North Co-operative Society Ltd. T.1531, Kurvavankonam, Thiruvananthapuram – 695 003 represented by its Secretary |
(by Adv. Liju B. Nair)
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
| Sidharthan P.K., MRA – 12, Sumedhalayam, Muttada P.O., Thiruvananthapuram – 695 025 |
JUDGEMENT
HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. K. SURENDRA MOHAN: PRESIDENT
Heard. This is an appeal filed by the opposite party in C.C.No.344/2021 of the Consumer Disptues Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram (the District Commission for short) against the final order passed in the complaint on 31.10.2022. The respondent/complainant had availed a loan from the appellant Society. For the purpose of granting him the loan, he was allotted shares in the Society worth Rs.5,000/-(Rupees Five Thousand). After the loan was fully repaid he sought for the return of the value of the shares purchased by him. Since the amount was not returned to him he approached the District Commission. The complaint was contested by the appellant herein.
2. After considering the contentions of the respective parties the District Commission has allowed the complaint and directed return of the amount of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees Five Thousand) due to the respondent, together with interest thereon @6% per annum and an amount of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees Five Thousand) as costs of the proceedings. The appellant herein is aggrieved by the said order.
3. This appeal has come up before us for admission. We have heard the counsel for the appellant. This is a case where the amount was recovered from the respondent for allotting shares to his name as a pre condition for permitting him to avail the facility of taking a loan from the appellant society. The amount ought to have been returned on his request, since the loan amount has admittedly been repaid by him in full. The omission to do so certainly amounts to deficiency in service for which the District Commission has rightly ordered payment of compensation, together with return of the amount that was due. We find no infirmity in the said order of the District Commission.
For the above reasons, this appeal is dismissed. No costs.
JUSTICE K. SURENDRA MOHAN | : | PRESIDENT |
RANJIT R. | : | MEMBER |
BEENA KUMARY A. | : | MEMBER |
K.R. RADHAKRISHNAN | : | MEMBER |
SL
