SRI.K. VIJAYAKUMARAN, PRESIENT. Complaint for realization of amounts in Fixed Deposit and Saving Bank Account, compensation costs etc. The averments in the complaint can be briefly summarized as follows: The complainant are the members of the Mundrothuruthu Service Co-operati9ve Bank Ltd. 3977. The complainants jointly deposited Rs.1,00,000/- as Fixed Deposit for a period of 12 months in the above bank. The maturity date of the Fixed deposit was 16.5.2007. After the maturity period is over the complainants requested the amount as per the Fixed Deposit several times but the amounts was not returned on the ground that there is lack of funds in the bank. Complainants have also a Savings Bank account amounting to Rs.91,147/- which was also not returned without any valid reason. The first complainant was a subscriber of Group Deposit Credit Scheme with the Mundrothuruthu Service Co-operative Bank which was run by the 2nd opp.party as a foreman. A sum of Rs.15,000/-is also due to the complainants under the above credit Scheme. The above sums were not returned without any valid reason which is deficiency in service on the part of the bank. Hence the complaint. Opp.party 2 and 3 remained absent. The first opp.party filed version contending interalia, that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts.. The first opp.party do not come within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act and he is an unnecessary party to the complaint. The averments contained in the para 1 and 2 are admitted. So also the averments in para 5. The averments in paras 3,4,, 6 to 8 are not within the knowledge of this opp.party and hence denied. The first opp.party do not render any service to the complainant and therefore there is no consumer relationship between the first opp.party and the complainant. Hence the first opp.party prays to dismiss the complaint. The 4th opp.party filed a separate version also contending that the complaint is not maintainable as against him. The 4th opp.party was the Secretary of the Mundrothuruthu Service Co-operative Bank and he superannuated on 31.1.2007 and thereafter he has no control over the bank. The complainants had made the deposit mentioned in the para 2 of the complaint. Since the 4th opp.party does not have control over the bank he is unable to comment on the details of the deposit without verifying the records. The 4th opp.party is not responsible for the financial instability of the bank. The deposits made by the complainant have to be repaid by the bank and the 4th opp.party has no personal liability on that amount. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the 4th opp.party. Hence the 4th opp.party also prays to dismiss the complaint. Points that would arise for consideration are: 1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opp.parties 2. Reliefs and costs. For the complainant PW.1 and 2 are examined. Ext.P1 to P5 are marked. No oral or documentary evidence for the opp.party POINTS: The deposit of Rs. 1 lakh in the opp.party 2 Co-operative Bank by the complainants as per Ext.P1 is not disputed. There is also no specific denial regarding the amount in the Savings Bank account and also Group Deposit Credit Scheme. The Fixed Deposit amount and the other amounts referred to in the complainant was not returned to the complainant is also not disputed. According to the first opp.party the complaint as against him not maintainable as he has not rendered any service to the complainant to allege deficiency in service on his part . As a matter of fact there is absolutely nothing in the complainant to show for what purpose opp.party 1 was impleaded and in what way deficiency has been committed by the first opp. party. Therefore as argued by the first opp.party the complaint as against him is not maintainable. The contention of the opp.party 4 is that he was the Secretary of the Mandrothuruth Co-operative Bank and he retired from service on 31.1.2007. It is argued by the opp.party 4 that even prior to the Fixed deposit made by the complainants as per ExtP1, he has retired and since he has no control over the account of the bank after retirement, the complainants has no cause of action against him to allege deficiency in service. The fact that opp.party 4 retired from service on 31.1.2007 is not challenged by cogent evidence. The contention of the complainant is that during the period when opp.party 4 was the Secretary of the above bank, he has casvassed the complainant to make the deposits in the bank which may be probable. It may also be but that it is because of that the complainants have deposited the amount. But once he has retired from the bank as argued by the 4th opp.party he has no control over the day to day affairs of the bank and as such no liability whether separately or vicariously can be fastened on opp.party 4. There is also no specific allegations against opp.party 3 who was the Ex-president of the above bank. Ext. P5 is an enquiry report in respect of opp.party 2 bank where in it is stated that the present state of affairs of the bank and financial instability are due to the misappropriation and arbitrary acts of the Executive Committee and the forman Presidents and Secretaries. But there is no allegation that as on the date of demand for the amounts in the Fixed Deposit and the savings bank opp.party 3 and 4 were in the bank and they have committed any deficiency in service. Opp.party 2 is the Secretary of Mandorthuruthu Service Co-operative bank. It is to be noted that the Secretary has issued the Fixed Deposit receipt for and on behalf of the bank. The other accounts such as SB and Group Deposit Credit Scheme are also under the control of the Secretary. Opp.party 2 has not appeared nor filed any version. Since the 2nd opp.party is the Secretary of the bank who is having control over the finance and other matters of the bank, it is the duty of the 2nd opp.party to refund the Fixed Deposit amount as per Ext.P1 and other amounts deposited by the members. As pointed out earlier Ext. P5 shows that some mal practices and misappropriation have been committed by the presidents and members of the bank which has resulted in financial crises to the bank. Whatever that be the liability to pay the complainants the amount in deposit in the opp.party 2 bank is on the Secretary of the bank and the non- payment of the above sums after due date is deficiency in service on the part of the bank. Point found accordingly. In the result the complaint is allowed directing the 2nd opp.party to pay the complainant Rs. 1 lakh with interest @ 10% per annum from 20.3.2007 till payment and Rs. 91,147 and Rs.15,000/- at the rates of interest applicable to the SB account from the date of complaint till payment. The 2nd opp.party is also directed to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- towards compensation and costs. The complaint as against opp.parties 1, 3 and 4 is dismissed. The order is to be complied with within one month from the date of this order. Dated this the 14th day of September, 2010. . I n d e x List of witnesses for the complainant PW.1. – Mohanan PW.2. – E.T. Darlin List of documents for the complainant P1. – Fixed Deposit Receipt P2. – Pass Book P3. – Pass Book Group Deposit Credit Scheme P4. – Reply notice P5. – Enquiry report | 
