IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Thursday the 31st day of March, 2011
Filed on 10.11.2010
Present
- Sri. Jimmy Korah (President)
- Sri. K. Anirudhan (Member)
- Smt. Shajitha Beevi (Member)
in
C.C.No.294/10
between
Complainant:- Opposite Parties:-
Smt. Rajam, W/o Karunakaran Nair 1. SNDP Yogam, Kollam – 1 Punnapra P.O., Ambalappuzha Rep. its General Secretary,
Alappuzha (By Adv. C. Vidhu)
2. SNDP Sakha Yogam No.363
Kakkazhom, Neerkkunnam P.O.
TDMC, Alappuzha – 5
Represented by its Secretary
3. Sri. P.G.Babu (President
SNDP -do- -do-)
S/o Gangadharan, Opparakadav
Kakkazhom, Alappuzha
4. Sri. Bhaskaran (Secretary,
SNDP -do- -do-) S/o Kesavan, Anavelil Veedu
Neerkkunnam, Alappuzha
O R D E R
SRI. JIMMY KORAH (PRESIDENT)
. The complainant’s case is as follows: - The complainant is a retired Kerala Govt. employee. The complainant. on 6th August 2001 deposited an amount of Rs.20,000/(Rupees twenty thousand only) with the 2nd opposite party. To the said effect the complainant was issued a passbook with the said amount duly noted therein. The complainant deposited the said amount in as much as the 3rd and the 4th opposite parties had offered 12% interest to the deposit . Despite the said assurance, the opposite parties did not pay any interest to the complainant subsequent to 9th October 2006. Notwithstanding repeated requests and demands, the opposite party was disinclined to provide the interest or to hand back the deposited amount. The business activities of the 2nd opposite party is being controlled and administered by the 1st opposite party. The 1st opposite party is accountable for the assets and liability of the 2nd opposite party. The 3rd and 4th opposite parties defa1cated the deposited amount to amass assets in their own name and in the name of their relatives. There is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. The complainant sustained inexplicable mental agony and monetary loss. The opposite parties 1 to 4 are equally liable to the complainant. The complainant contends that he is entitled to recover an amount of Rs.20000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) with 12% interest from 9th October, 2006 till the date of its recovery along with other relief. Hence the complaint.
2. Notice is issued to the opposite parties. The 1st opposite party alone turned up and filed version. The others were set Ex-parte. The contentions of the 1st opposite party is that the said opposite party has not entered into any transaction with the complainant. The complainant is not the consumer of the 1st opposite party. The 2nd opposite party is not the branch of the 1st opposite party, and the same is not accountable for the financial liability of the 2nd opposite party, the 1st opposite party argues. The complaint is only to be dismissed with cost, the 1st opposite party submits.
3. The complainant’s evidence consists of the testimony of the complainant himself as PWl, and the documents Exts. Al and A2 were marked. The 1st opposite party cross-examined the complainant.
4. The sole question arises, on the basis of the contentions in the compliant for consideration is:-
Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief sought for in the complaint?
5. The 1st opposite party alone turned up and made it a point to counter the complainant case. According to the 1st opposite party, the complainant is not its consumer, and the 1st opposite party is not liable for the acts of the 2nd opposite party. We perused the materials available on record. It appears that in the eye of law, the said opposite party has not any direct link or association with the other opposite parties. That apart, no material is there on record to show that the 1st opposite party approached the complainant seeking any deposit, or acknowledged the 2nd opposite party accepting the deposit from the general public. In this context, we are unable to accept the version advanced by the complainant in respect of the 1st opposite party. As we have already observed, the other opposite parties, notwithstanding being summoned have not turned up nor have contended the complainant’s case. On the other hand, the complainant duly produced the relevant Pass Book. The Pass Book evidently shows the complainant has deposited Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) with the 2nd opposite party, and subsequent there to from 9th October, 2006 the opposite party had not paid the offered interest to the complainant. The complainant affirms that she suffered both monetary and mental woes. As we have already observed, the opposite parties 2 to 4 were neither keen on appearing before this forum nor to rebut the evidence let in by the complainant. Needless to say the complainant's evidence stands unchallenged and we have no course open but to accept the evidence of the complainant. In the light of this aspect, we hold that the complainant is . entitled to an amount of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) with 12% interest from 9th October 2006 till the date of its recovery. Apparently, there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.
For the forgoing discussion, the opposite parties 2 to 4 are directed to pay the deposit amount of Rs.20,000/-(Rupees twenty thousand only) to the complainant with 12% interest from 9th October 2006 till its realization. The complainant is also entitled to a compensation of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only). The 2nd opposite party and its assets are liable for the said amount. The opposite parties shall comply with the order within 30 days of date of this order.
The complaint is allowed accordingly. No order as to cost.
Pronounced in open Forum on this the 31st day of March, 2011.
Sd/- Sri. Jimmy Korah:
Sd/- Sri. K. Anirudhan:
Sd/- Smt.N.Shajitha Beevi:
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - D.Karunakaran Nair (Witness)
Ext.A1 - Pass Book
Ext.A2 - Letter of authorization
Evidence of the opposite parties:- Nil
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainants/Opposite parties/S.F.
Typed by :-pr/-
Compared by:-
