BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

ERNAKULAM.

Date of filing : 07/09/2009

Date of Order : 31/08/2011

Present :-

Shri. A. Rajesh, President.

Shri. Paul Gomez, Member.

Smt. C.K. Lekhamma, Member.

C.C. No. 482/2009

Between

 

And

O R D E R

A. Rajesh, President.

1. The case of the complainant is as follows :

On 12-04-1989, the complainant joined ’Mangalya Deposit Scheme’ conducted by the opposite party by depositing Rs. 25,000/-. As per the scheme, the opposite party agreed to pay Rs. 4,00,000/- on the maturity of the scheme ie. on 12-04-2009. But the opposite party paid only Rs. 1,21,689/- after the maturity of the deposit. Thereafter on 24-04-2009, the complainant caused to issue a legal notice demanding to pay the balance amount of Rs. 3,03,331/- with interest. The opposite party replied stating untenable contentions. The complainant is entitled to get the balance amount with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of maturity together with compensation of Rs. 1 lakh and costs of the proceedings. This complaint hence.

2. Version of the opposite party :

Under Section 100 of the Co-operative Societies Act, this complaint is not maintainable in the Forum. On the basis of the deduction in interest rate and the direction of the Co-operative Department and District Co-operative Bank, the opposite party had decided to stop Mangalya Deposit Scheme. The general body of the Bank had decided the same and intimated the complainant. Accordingly, the complainant has entrusted the deposit receipt with the opposite party and accepted the amount offered by them. The present attempt is to eke out money from the opposite party. The complainant is not entitled for any more amount from the opposite party.

3. No oral evidence was adduced by the complainant. Exts. A1 to A3 were marked on his side. Witness for the opposite party was examined as DW1. Exts. B1 to B3 were marked on the side of the opposite party. The counsel for the complainant filed argument notes. Heard the counsel for the parties.

4. The points that emanated for consideration are :-

1. Whether the complaint is maintainable in this Forum?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get Rs. 3,03,311/- from the opposite party.

3. Compensation and costs of the proceedings?

5. Point No. i. :- The opposite party has raised the question of maintainability of this complaint in I.A. No. 541/2009, which has been dismissed by this Forum vide order dated 07-04-2010 by relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Secretary, Thirumurugan Co-op. Agricultural Credit Society Vs. M. Lalitha (AIR 2004 SC 448), which stands uncontroverted or challenged.

6. Point No. ii. :- The parties are in consensus on the following issues :

1. The complainant joined ’Mangalya Deposit Scheme’ with the opposite party on 12-04-1989 by depositing Rs. 25,000/-.

2. As per the scheme, the date of maturity of the deposit was 12-04-2009 and the maturity amount was Rs. 4,00,000/-.

3. The opposite party had paid a sum of Rs. 1,21,689/- only to the complainant on maturity of the deposit instead of the amount as per the contract which falls short of Rs. 2,78,311/-.

4. The complainant caused to issue Ext. A2 lawyer notice demanding to pay the balance amount to which the opposite party sent Ext. A3 reply notice.

5. The opposite party decided to close the deposit scheme with effect from 30-06-2003 and sent Ext. B3 letter intimating the same to the complainant.

6. Ext. B3 notice was returned stating ’unclaimed’.

7. According to the learned counsel for the complainant, the complainant is entitled to get the balance amount in the maturity amount together with interest thereafter. The learned counsel for the complainant relied on the following decisions of higher judiciary :

1. Ahamed Koya and Another Vs. Murugesa Mudaliar Son & Co. 1968 KLJ 708.

2. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. Vs. Annapurna Construction (2003) 8 SCC 154.

3. K.A. Louiz & Others Vs. A.A. Augustine 2004 (2) KLJ 361.

4. B.S.N.L. & Others Vs. Abhishek Shukla & Another (2009) 5 SCC 368.

5. Mary Mathai Vs. Kalloorkadu Farmers Co-operative Bank Ltd. III (2020) CPJ 279.

6. Enathu Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. Vs. Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum and another ILR 2011 (1) 423.

    

8. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the opposite party vehemently contended that the further continuation of the scheme would affect the very existence of the bank. He further stated that the complainant has received the amount without any objection and the complainant is estopped from making any demand for further amount. The counsel relied on the following decisions :

1. Vidhyadhar Vs. Mankikrao & Anr. AIR 1999 SC 1441.

2. M/s. Kerala Agro Machinery Corporation Ltd. Vs. Bijoy Kumar Roy and Ors. 2002 SAR (Civil) 800.

3. Gopinathan P.S. Vs. State of Kerala and Others ILR 2008 (2) SC 682.

9. The Hon’ble Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Mary Mathai Vs. Kalloorkadu Farmers Co-operative Bank Ltd. (Supra) in an identical matter held in Para 9 as follows :

“Evidently the appellants have deposited the amounts taking into confidence that the terms of the above schemes will be complied with by the respondent/bank, the same being a organization fully supported and controlled by the Government. It is after more than a decade that the opposite parties have unilaterally closed the schemes and intimated that they will provide only the prevalent rate of interest. Retreating from the promises made evidently amounts to deficiency in service. We find that there is considerable loss to the complainants on account of the withdrawal of the above schemes. They would have opted for some other social security measures if the opposite parties had not launched the impugned welfare schemes. It is almost in the last phase of the period and in certain cases even after receiving Karshaka pension the schemes have been stopped. It is is also pertinent to note to the stoppage of schemes is against the order of the Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies. The case of the respondents that complainants had agreed to abide by the future terms brought in by the bank cannot be taken as a defense as such as future terms cannot be brought that would terminate the entire scheme itself. There is no clause in the declaration that the opposite parties are empowered or entitled to withdraw the schemes at any time.”

10. In the instant case, as well the opposite party unilaterally closed the deposit scheme with effect from 30-06-2003 and redeposited the amount in favour of the complainant vide Ext. B1 deposit receipt. The opposite party is primarily and contractually liable to pay the balance maturity amount as per Ext. A1 to the complainant together with the prevailing interest thereafter. The above decision applies squarely in the case at hand. We are not necessarily to rely on the decision relied on by both sides since they have reliance to the present case.

11. The opposite party has raised a contention that the complainant has received the amount without demur, but nothing is on record to substantiate the above contention of the opposite party. The opposite party at last ought to have produced the relevant documents to show that the amount has been disbursed towards full and final settlement of the account.

12. Point No. iii. :- Since the primary grievance of the complainant having been met squarely. We order no compensation and costs.

13. Resultantly, we allow the complaint in part and direct that the opposite party shall pay Rs. 2,78,311/- (Rs. 4,00,000/- - Rs. 1,21,689/- = 2,78,311/-) to the complainant together with the prevailing rate of interest from the date of maturity of the deposit till realisation.

The order shall be complied with, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Pronounced in open Forum on this the 31^st day of August 2011.