KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

APPEAL No. 481/2010

ORDER DATED: 28-02-2011

PRESENT:

SMT. VALSALA SARANGADHARAN    : MEMBER

SHRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN                             :   JUDICIAL MEMBER

SHRI. M.K. ABDULLA SONA                  :   MEMBER

1.         President,

Thiruvananthapuram Taluk Taxi-

Drivers Co-operative Society

No.T.723, Fort P.O, TVPM.

                                                                        : APPELLANTS

2.         Secretary,

Thiruvananthapuram Taluk Taxi-

Drivers Co-operative Society

No.T.723, Fort P.O, TVPM.

(By Adv:Sri.K.R.Haridas)

            Vs.

1.         Sreerag D. Chavan,

TC 40/1666,

Attakulangara, Manacaud.P.O,

TVPM-695 009.

(By Adv.Sri.Narayanamoorthy)

                                                                        : RESPONDENTS

2.         S.Padmanabhan,

TC.41/213, Manacaud.P.O,

TVPM-9.

                                                        JUDGMENT

SHRI.M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER

Appellants 1 and 2 were the opposite parties 1 and 2 and respondents 1 and 2 were the complainant and 3^rd opposite party respectively in OP.26/05 on the file of CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram.  The above complaint was filed alleging deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties in not disbursing the amount which was deposited by the complainant in the Pigmy account operated by the opposite parties.

2.      Opposite parties 1 and 2 entered appearance and filed written version denying the alleged deficiency of service.  They contended that the claim is barred by limitation and that the complainant being the Pigmy deposit holder had withdrawn a sum of Rs.9,012/- from the said account on 12/9/2002 and there was only balance of Rs.200/-.  Thus, the claim of the complainant for Rs.23,600/- was disputed by the opposite parties 1 and 2.

3.      3^rd opposite party, the Pigmy agent who collected the Pigmy deposit amounts from the complainant remaind absent.

4.      Before the Forum below the complainant was examined as PW1 and the 2^nd opposite party the Secretary, Thiruvananthapuram Taluk Taxi Drivers’ Co-operative Society was examined as DW1.  Ext.P1 account card was produced and marked from the side of the complainant and Exts.D1 to D3 documents on the side of the opposite parties 1 and 2.  On an appreciation of the evidence on record, the Forum below passed the impugned order dated:15/3/2010 allowing the complaint and thereby directing the opposite parties 1 and 2 to pay Rs.18,500/-  with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from 24/3/2003 till the date of payment and cost of Rs.1500/-.  Aggrieved y the said order, the present appeal is preferred.

5.      We heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the 1^st respondent.  The 2^nd respondent/3^rd opposite party remained absent through out the appeal proceedings.

6.      There is no dispute that the 1^st respondent/complainant was an account holder of the Pigmy account operated by the appellant, Thiruvananthapuram Taluk Taxi Drivers’ Co-operative Society, Poojappura, Thiruvananthapuram.  Appellants 1 and 2 are the President and the Secretary of the said Co-operative Society.  The case of the complainant is that a sum of Rs.23,600/- was in his Pigmy deposit as on 24/3/2003 and that he is entitled to get the aforesaid amount with interest.  The appellants/opposite parties 1 and 2 admitted the fact that complainant was an account holder with account No.9516 of the Pigmy deposit amount and that the 2^nd respondent/3^rd opposite party was the Pigmy agent appointed by the appellant/opposite party, Thiruvananthapuram Taluk Taxi Drivers’ Co-operative Society.  The appellants have got a case that the claim is barred by limitation.  But the said contention of the appellants cannot be accepted in the light of the documentary evidence available on record.  Ext.P1 account card produced from the side of the complainant in OP.26/05 would make it clear that the complainant as the Pigmy deposit holder had operatedthe account from September 2002 till 24/3/2003 and a total of Rs.20,500/- was in his Pigmy deposit account.   The issuance of P1 account card and the entries made by the Pigmy agent (3^rd opposite party) has been deposed by the complainant as PW1.  There is no reason or ground to doubt the testimony of PW1.  The appellants have got a case that P1 is a fabricated document.  But no such case was pleaded by the opposite parties 1 and 2 (appellants) before the Forum below.  Considering the facts, circumstances and evidence on record it can be concluded that P1 is a genuine document evidencing deposit of amounts by the complainant in the Pigmy account operated by the appellant/opposite party,  Thiruvananthapuram Taluk Taxi Drivers’ Co-operative Society.  It is further to be noted that the appellants/opposite parties 1 and 2 have categorically admitted the fact that the 2^nd respondent/3^rd opposite party Pigmy agent used to collect deposit amounts from the 1^st respondent/complainant.  Thus, in all respects it can very safely be concluded that P1 is a genuine account card issued y the appellants/opposite parties 1 and 2 evidencing the collection of the Pigmy deposit from the 1^st respondent/complainant through their pigmy agent, the 3^rd opposite party.

7.      P1 account card would show that from September 2002 till 24/3/2003, the complainant effected deposit of Rs.20,500/-.  But the Forum below has only awarded Rs.18,500/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from 24/3/2003 till the date of payment.  Anyhow, the 1^st respondent/complainant has not challenged the correctness of the impugned order passed by the Forum below in OP.26/05.  Thus, the impugned order directing the appellants/opposite parties 1 and 2 to pay of Rs.18,500/- with interest and cost is to be upheld.

8.      Ext.D1 application form submitted by the complainant would show that the complainant joined the pigmy deposit scheme of the opposite party, Thiruvananthapuram Taluk Taxi Drivers’ Co-operative Society on 6/2/2002.  Ext.D2 copy of the cash voucher dated:12/9/2002 would strengthen the case of the appellants/opposite parties that a sum of Rs.9.012/- was withdrawn by the 1^st respondent/complainant from the pigmy account dtd: 12/9/2002.  The genuineness and correctness of Ext.D2 cash voucher on 12/9/2002 is not disputed by the complainant.  Ext.D3 copy of the savings bank account would also show that a sum of Rs.9,012/- was withdrawn by the complainant on 12/9/2002 and there was a balance of Rs.200/- in his pigmy account during September 2002.  Ext.P1 account card would show that thereafter the complainant remitted a total of Rs.20,500/- towards his pigmy account with the opposite party,  Thiruvananthapuram Taluk Taxi Drivers’ Co-operative Society.  So, the last transaction entered into between the complainant and opposite parties was on 24/3/2003.  The complaint in OP.26/05 was filed on 18/1/2005.  If that be so, the claim preferred in OP.26/05 was made within the stipulated time.  The Forum below is perfectly justified in holding that the claim is not barred by limitation.

9.      The foregoing discussions and the findings thereon would make it clear that there is no sustainable ground warranting interference with the impugned order passed by the Forum below in OP.26/05. The Forum below only awarded interest at the rate of 9% per annum.  The rate of interest awarded can be treated as very reasonable and justifiable.  The Forum below has also awarded cost of Rs.1500/-.  Thus, in all respects the impugned order passed by the Forum below is to be upheld.  Hence we do so.

In the result, the appeal is dismissed.  The impugned order dated:15/3/2010 passed by the Forum below in OP.26/05 is confirmed.  As far as the present appeal is concerned, the parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.

M.V. VISWANATHAN:   JUDICIAL MEMBER

VALSALA SARANGADHARAN: MEMBER

M.K. ABDULLA SONA :   MEMBER

VL.