IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Friday the 29th day of January, 2010
Filed on 3.7.2009
Present
- Sri. Jimmy Korah (President)
- Sri. K. Anirudhan (Member)
- Smt. Shajitha Beevi (Member)
in
C.C.No. 236/2009
between
Complainant:- Opposite Parties:-
Smt.Aleyamma Mathew 1. Sreenarayana Dharma
W/o Late I.M. Mathew Paripalana Yogam (SNDP Yogam) Illickal House, Lajanath Ward Represented by its General Secretary
Alappuzha Head Office and Registered Office
at Kollam (By Adv. C.Vidhu)
2. SNDP Sakha Yogam No.363
Represented by its Secretary
Kakkazhom, Neerkkunnam
3.. President, SNDP Sakha Yogam
No.363, Kakkazhom, Neerkkunnam
4. Secretary, SNDP Sakha Yogam Branch No. 363, Kakkazhom, Neerkkunnam
O R D E R
SMT.N.SHAJITHA BEEVI (MEMBER)
Smt.Aleyamma Mathew has filed this complaint before the Forum on 3.7.2009 alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The brief facts of the allegations of the complainant are as follows:- The specific assurance of the opposite parties the husband of the complainant had deposited a total sum of Rs.1,40,000/- before the Sakha Yogam on different dates. The opposite parties issued pass book to the husband of the complainant and they had paid interest till 01.09.2006 to him. Thereafter the opposite parties failed to pay the interest or deposited amount till date, even though he had requested to return the amount. Thereafter Mr.I.M.Mathew died on 12.6.2007, the complainant requested to return the amount. Since there was no positive steps to return the amount, she filed this complaint seeking relief.
2. Notices were issued to the opposite parties. But opposite parties 2 to 4 were absent in the subsequent proceedings of this case. Considering their absence, the opposite parties 2 to 4 were declared as exparte on 6.8.2009. First opposite party entered appearance before this Forum and filed version
3. In the version, the first opposite party had stated that they never entered into any transaction with the complainant. The 1st opposite party has never given any consent to any other opposite parties to do money business. More over the SNDP Yogam has Sakhas and Unions as per the conditions prescribed by subsidiary rules, and further contended that 1st opposite party is not at all liable. Hence no relief can be sought against the 1st opposite party.
3. Considering the allegations of the complainant, and contentions of the first opposite party, this Forum has raised the following issues:-
1) Whether there is any deficiently in service and negligence on the part of the
opposite parties in repayment of fixed deposit to the complainant?
2) Whether the complainant is entitled to get compensation and costs from the
opposite parties?
5. Issues 1 and 2:- Complainant has filed proof affidavit in support of her case and produced document in evidence – Ext.A1 was marked. Ext. A1 is the original Pass book issued by the opposite parties to the depositor at the time of depositing the amount. It shows that the deposited amount, interest paid etc.
6. On a careful study of the entire matter of this case, it can be seen that as per the assurance given by the opposite parties, the husband of the complainant had deposited the amount in the Sakha Yogam administered by the opposite parties 2 to 4. The opposite parties had paid interest to the depositor for a certain period, for the said deposited amount. Since the opposite parties had defaulted payment of interest, the complainant requested the opposite parties to return the deposited amount with interest. But the opposite parties have not shown any effort to return the same. This will amounts to cheating. The entire actions on the part of the opposite parties shows the deficiency in service and negligence by way of refusal to repay the deposited amount with interest to the complainant in time. There is no justification on the part of the opposite parties in retaining the amount with them which is payable to the complainant. The entire action of the opposite parties shows their irresponsible attitude towards this transaction. The complainant is fully entitled to get back the deposited amounts with interest from the opposite parties. On a perusal of the documents and other details, the first opposite party had no role in this transaction and cannot insist the first opposite party to pay the amounts to the complainant. Since there is deficiency in service and negligence on the part of the opposite parties 2 to 4 by way purposeful denial of repayment of deposit amount and its interest to the complainant in time, the complainant is entitled to get compensation and costs from the opposite parties and that the opposite parties 2 to 4 are jointly and severely liable for that. Considering, the whole aspects of this case, we are fully convinced that the allegations put forward by the complainant against the opposite parties are highly genuine. So the complaint is to be allowed. All the issues are found in favour of the complainant.
In the result, for the ends of justice, we hereby direct the opposite parties 2 to 4 to return the deposited amount of Rs.1,40,000/- (Rupees one lakh and forty thousand only) to the complainant along with 14% interest per annum from 01.09.2006, till the date of repayment of the entire amount to the complainant and pay a compensation of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) to the complainant for her mental agony, pain, sufferings, inconvenience and loss due to the grossest deficiency in service, culpable negligence and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties by way of purposeful refusal to return back the deposited amounts and its interest in time to the complainant, and further pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) as cost of this proceedings. We further direct the opposite parties 2 to 4 to pay the above said amounts to the complainant within the 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.
Pronounced in open Forum on this the 29th day of January, 2010.
Sd/- Smt. N. Shajitha Beevi:
Sd/- Sri. Jimmy Korah:
Sd/- Sri.K. Anidudhan:
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
Ext. A1 - Pass Book
Evidence of the opposite parties:- Nil
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite parties/S.F.
Typed by:- pr/-
Compared by:-
