District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum

Civil Station, Palakkad – 678 001, Kerala

Dated this the 30^th day of December, 2010

Present: Smt.Seena.H, President

            Smt.Preetha.G.Nair, Member

            Smt.Bhanumathi.A.K, Member                                 Date of filing: 22/05/2010

CC. No.72/2010

P.Madhavan

Retd. Teacher

Krishna Nivas

P.O.Kottappuram

Ottapalam Taluk

Palakkad District                                            -                  Complainant

(By Adv.K.Dhananjayan & S.Santhoshkumar)

Vs

1. The Managing Director

    Ottapalam Taluk Rubber Marketing

    Co-operative Society in short ‘Ormas’

    P.O.Kottappuram

    Palakkad 679518.

    (By Adv.Manoj.P.Menon)

2. The Branch Manager

    The State Bank of Travancore

    Karimpuzha Branch

    Karimpuzha                                                         -                  Opposite parties

O R D E R

          By Smt.SEENA.H, PRESIDENT

          Complaint in brief:

          Complainant deposited an amount of Rs.50,000/- with the 1^st opposite party society vide FD No.2053 on 5/10/05 for 3 years.  The agreed rate of interest was 10.5% p.a.  The complainant could withdraw the fixed deposit amount at any time after the due date or if he desires could also renew it.  Complainant opted to withdraw the amount from the opposite party and approached 1^st opposite party for the same.  But 1^st opposite party returned the complainant promising that they would pay the amount soon.  Believing the words of 1^st opposite party complainant gave the FD receipt for collection to 2^nd opposite party where the complainant has an account.  An instruction was also given to 2^nd opposite party to withdraw the amount from the society and to credit it in his SB account on 19/01/2009, but the FD could not be credited due to insufficiency of funds in the 1^st opposite party’s account.  2^nd opposite party has returned the FD receipt with a debit advice memo dt.22/01/2009 along with dishonour memo.  According to complainant, the act of 1^st opposite party amounts to deficiency in service on their part and hence the complaint.  Complainant prays for an order directing 1^st opposite party to pay Rs.50,000/- with 10.5% interest for 3 years along with future interest @ 10.5% till realization and Rs.10,000/- as compensation and Rs.5,000/- as cost of the proceedings.  No relief is sought against 2^nd opposite party.

          2^nd opposite party was set ex-parte.  1^st opposite party filed version contending the following.  That the complaint is not maintainable before the forum as it is a dispute between the Co-operative Society and its Member.  As the dispute touches the business of the Society, ARC court is the proper forum to approach.  Further stated that since the service rendered by 1^st opposite party is not a paid service, it will not come under the purview of the Consumer Protection Act.  Further regarding payment of matured FD amount, 1^st opposite party submits that it could not be paid to financial crisis faced by 1^st opposite party society.  If the complainant opts to renew the FD amount, 1^st opposite party submits that it can be repaid with interest  within a particular period.  1^st opposite party submits that complainant is aware of those facts and it is filed to harass the opposite party.

          The evidence led by the parties consists of their respective affidavits.  Exts.A1 to A4 marked on the side of complainant.  No documentary evidence on the side of opposite parties.

          The issues that arise for our consideration are;

1. Whether the complaint is maintainable?

2. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?

3. If so what is the relief and cost?

          Issue No.1:

          Whether the complaint is maintainable before the forum was framed as a preliminary issue and was found in favour of the complainant vide order in IA dt.19/10/2010.

          The other contention is that there is no consideration for the transaction as it is not a paid service.  We are unable to accept the said stand of 1^st opposite party since the FD amount in the deposit of 1^st opposite party can be utilized for various purposes.  Further Consumer Protection Act specifically includes banking service within the deficiency of service.  Hence we are of the view that complaint is maintainable before the forum.

          Issues 2 & 3:                                                                  

          It is admitted case that the complainant has deposited an amount of Rs.50,000/- vide FD No. 2053 on 5/10/05.  FD receipt is marked as Ext.A1.  Ext.A4 letter dt.22/01/2009 by 1^st opposite party to 2^nd opposite party bank, it is stated the bankers cheque on FDR 2053 is returned without honouring due to insufficiency of funds.  As per the FD receipt principal amount with accrued interest had to be paid on 5/10/2008.  The stand of 1^st opposite party that it could not be paid due to financial crisis is of no relevance as far a customer is concerned.  Further stand of 1^st opposite party that it could be paid if the complainant renew the FD amount for a short more period is also equally unacceptable.  It is the option of the party concerned to renew it or not.  Non return of deposited amount with accrued interest after the maturity date is clear deficiency in service on the part of 1^st opposite party and complainant is entitled  for a just compensation for the period for which 1^st opposite party has retained the FD amount with them.

          In the result, complaint allowed.  1^st opposite party is directed to pay complainant deposited amount of Rs.50,000/- along with assured interest till due date and further interest @ 10.5% p.a for the principal amount from the due date till date of order along with cost of Rs.2,000/-(Rupees Two thousand only).  Order to be complied within one month from the date of receipt of the order failing which the whole amount shall carry further interest @9% p.a from the date of order till realization.

          Pronounced in the open court on this the 30^th day of December, 2010

                                                                                                        Sd/-

         Smt.Seena.H,

                                                                                                President

                                                                                            Sd/-                                                                                                                    Smt.Preetha.G.Nair,

                                                                                      Member

    Sd/-                                            

                  Smt.Bhanumathi.A.K

                                                                                                 Member

Appendix

Witnesses examined on the side of complainant

Nil

Witnesses examined on the side of opposite parties

Nil

Exhibits marked on the side of complainant

Ext.A1 – F.D.Receipt No.2053 dtd.05/01/2005 for Rs.50,000/-

Ext.A2 – Photocopy of letter dtd.19/01/2009 sent by complainant to 2^nd opposite party

Ext.A3 – Intimation dtd.22/01/2009 sent by 2^nd opposite party to complainant

Ext.A4 – Letter dtd.22/01/2009 sent by 1^st opposite party to 2^nd opposite party bank

Exhibits marked on the side of opposite parties

Nil

Cost (allowed)

Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand only) allowed as cost of the proceedings.