SRI. K. ANIRUDHAN (MEMBER) Sri. C.D. Dharmarajan has filed this complaint before the Forum alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties by way of denial of the release of the deposited amounts. The brief facts of the allegations of the complainant are as follows:- The opposite parties are the responsible parties of the Trust M/s.Sree Narayana Samajam Trust No. L 38 A and deals with the financial matters including receiving deposits from the local people. Based on the assurance of the opposite parties, he had deposited a sum of Rs.20,000/- on 17.7.1992 after joined the member in the trust vide No.1766 and obtained a final Membership vide No.04/53 after change of the Membership. After depositing several amounts in the Trust, the total amounts comes to Rs. 47,000/- and it was noted in the Pass Book. He had obtained interest for the said deposited amount up to May, 2006. Thereafter, the opposite parties had not any paid interest to him. He has requested the opposite parties to return the deposited amounts with interest. The opposite parties have not returned the amounts to him so far. Hence this complaint, seeking relief. 2. Notice was issued to the parties. Opposite parties 1 and 4, and 5 to 7 entered appearance. The opposite parties 2 and 3 are not entered appearance before the Forum. Considering their absence, opposite parties 2 and 3 set exparte by this Forum on 19.2.2008. 3. In the version of opposite parties 1 and 4, it is stated that an adhoc committee is discharging the administration and whole affairs of the Samithi with effect from 27.5.2007; and that they are also necessary parties in the proceedings. It is stated that first opposite party was the President of the S.N. Samithi, while so, at the instance of the 2nd opposite party, SN Samithi Trust was formed and registered in the name of 2nd opposite party and that the 1st opposite party had participated in the meeting of the said Trust; and entire matters had done by the 2nd opposite party. It is further stated that the 4th opposite party was only a Clerk of the said Trust and she was neither an office bearer nor a representative of the Trust and first opposite party was only a former President. It is stated that huge amount is due from 2nd opposite party towards the fund of the Trust and that he had acknowledged the same. It is further stated that they are totally unaware of the alleged interest received by the complainant and he never approached them to make any deposit. The claim of the complainant is barred by limitation and he is not entitled to get any relief. 3. In the objection of the opposite parties 5 and 6, it is stated that the 5th opposite party was only a member in the Trust during the period of 2006, and worked for the Prardhana Samithi by way of Vice President and it was for only a short period. Trust and Prardhana Samithi are separate entity. It is further stated that the 6th opposite party had resigned the post of Vice President of the Prardhana Samithi on 9.8.2005 and acted only as a Memebr of Trust up to 15.8.2005, and he had no connection with the Trust and Prardhana Samithi from 2005 onwards. The whole matters relating to the Trust and Prardhana Samithi was conducted by the Trust President and its Secretary. Secretary was the sole authority of the deposits and its accounts. 4. In the objection filed by the opposite party 7, it is stated that he was not an authorized person or Member of the said Trust and he has no knowledge about the complaint and he was fully unaware of the said transaction of the complainant. It is stated that the complainant had not obtained any loss from him and he is not entitled to pay any amount to the complainant ; and he is unaware of the documents of the complainant. Being a Member of the Grama Panchayath he had taken active steps to get the deposited amounts from the opposite parties for the depositors. It is further stated that he is entitled to get compensation from the complainant, since the complaint is false. 5. Considering the contentions of the parties, this Forum has raised the issues:- 1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, in return of the deposited amounts and interest to the complainant? 2) Whether the complainant is entitled to get compensation and costs from the opposite parties? 6. Issues 1 and 2:- On the side of the complainant he has filed proof affidavit in support of his case and produced document in evidence – Ext.A1 marked – and he has been examined as PW1and cross examined by the opposite parties1 and 4; 5 and 6. Ext.A1 is the original Pass book issued by the SNPS Trust L 384 – Membership number 4/53 to the complainant. It shows the terms and conditions of deposit and details of mode of payment of interest. The original of the said Pass book shows that the complainant had obtained interest up to 21.5.2006. 7. On the side of the opposite parties 1 and 4 and 5 to 7, they have not filed any proof affidavit. Opposite parties 1 and 4 have produced 2 documents – Exts.B1 and B2. Ext.B1 is the notice of the Prardhana Samithi regarding the General body meeting and Ext.B2 is the programme notice of the said Samithi. 7. On a perusal of the entire matter of this case and on verification of the documents, it can be seen that the complainant had deposited the amounts with the opposite parties based on their assurance of the payment of interest in time. The opposite parties have paid interest up to 21.5.2006 to the complainant (Ext.A1) for the said deposited amounts. Exts.A1 further shows that an outstanding balance to be returned comes to Rs.47,000/-. The opposite parties had accepted the deposit amounts from the complainant and issued Pass book (Membership No.4/53) to the complainant noting the deposited amounts; and that the opposite parties had paid interest to the complainant for a certain period. So the opposite parties have jointly responsible for the deposited amounts of the complainant, since the opposite parties have administered the entire assets of the said Trust now. The opposite parties have no right to retain the deposited amounts with them without repayment to the complainant. The complainant is fully entitled to get back the entire deposited amounts with interest from the opposite parties. Since there is refusal to return back the deposited amounts with interest to the complainant, the opposite parties have committed culpable negligence and grossest deficiency in service. For this the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable and there is no justification in the contentions raised by the opposite parties 1 and 4 and 5 to 7 regarding the repayment of the amounts to the complainant. The entire aspects shows that the action of the opposite parties are wholly illegal, unauthorized and arbitrary. The contentions raised by the above opposite parties cannot be accepted since, it lacks bona fides and without any substance. In this respect, we are of the strong view that the allegations raised by the complainant are to be treated as genuine. So the complaint is to be allowed as prayed for. The issues are found in favour of the complainant. In the result, we hereby direct the opposite parties 1 to 3 and 5 and 6 to return the deposited amount of Rs.47,000/- (Rupees forty seven thousand only) to the complainant and pay an interest for the said amount at the rate of 12% per annum from 21.5.2006 till the date of realization of the entire amount and pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) as compensation to the complainant for his mental agony, pain, inconvenience, loss, sufferings and physical strain due to the grossest deficiency in service and culpable negligence on the part of the above said opposite parties by way of denial of return of the deposited amount and interest to the complainant in time and pay a sum of Rs.2000/- (Rupees two thousand only) as costs for this proceedings. We further direct the above said opposite parties to pay the said amounts to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. Complaint allowed. Pronounced in open Forum on this the 31st day of August 2009. Sd/- Sri. K. Anirudhan: Sd/- Sri. Jimmy Korah: Sd/- Smt.N.Shajitha Beevi: Appendix:- Evidence of the complainant:- PW1 - C.D. Dharmarajan (Witness) Ext.A1& A2 - Pass books Evidence of the opposite parties:- Ext.B1 - Notice of the Prardhana Samithi Ext.B2 - Programme notice // True Copy // By Order Senior Superintendent To Complainant/Opposite parties/S.F. Typed by:- pr/- Compared by:- | 
