IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOTTAYAM
Dated this the 19th day of July, 2021
Present: Sri. Manulal V.S. President
Smt. Bindhu R, Member
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member
C C No. 276/2017 (filed on 18-12-2017)
Petitioner : K.P. Chnadrasekharan Nair,
Thekkekoickal House,
Velloor, Kottayam West P.O.
Kottayam – 686003.
(Adv. Nithin Sunny Alex)
Vs.
Opposite Party : The Meenachil Rubber Marketing
& Processing Co-operative Society
`Ltd. No. KL – 118, Meenachil
Complex, Ramapuram, Pala 686575
(Adv. Bobby John and
Adv. Siju K. Issac)
O R D E R
Sri. Manulal V.S. President
Case of the complainant is as follows.
Complainant is MFMBS policy holder bearing No.8 of Meenachil Farmers Mutual Benefit Scheme policy to the opposite party. The said policy is a monthly installment scheme by depositing monthly subscriptions for 40 months for a total investment of Rs.5,00,000/-. The complainant had joined the said MFMBS scheme on 12-10-2013. The complainant was depositing the monthly installments till 2014. The complainant paid an amount of Rs.1,60,000/- in the said MFMBS scheme. By January, 2015 the opposite party fell into grave financial instabilities and other serious maladministration problems. When the complainant approached the opposite party for returning money, at first the Managing Director of the opposite party orally assured the complainant to return the amount which was paid by the complainant. But on 10-02-2016 the complainant received the notice from the opposite party seeking for an amount of Rs.1,18,937/- as dues in the MFMBS scheme. The complainant replied to the notice on 28-02-2016 denying any dues.
On 22-05-2017 the complainant caused another notice to the opposite party seeking the return of the installment amount of Rs.1,60,000/-. The opposite party issued a reply on 06-06-2017 assuring to pay back the amount. Evenafter the said assurance no payment was made to the complainant. Hence the complainant caused another notice dtd.28-09-2017 demanding the return of the amount. But the opposed party denied the return of the above said amount. According to the complainant the act of the opposite party by not returning the installments warrants unlawful enrichments amount to unfair trade practice and by way of non performance of assurance and promised service, the opposite party had committed deficiency in service. Hence this complaint is filed by the complainant praying an order for directing the opposite party to return Rs.1,60,000/- along with interest and compensation for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice committed by the opposite party.
Upon notice opposite party appeared before the Commission and filed version as follows,
It is contented by the opposite party that this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The averment in the complaint that by January, 2016 the opposite party fell in grave financial instability due to mal administration problem is false. It is submitted that huge amount from various institutions are due to the opposite party. When the funds were blocked, the opposite party faces serious financial problems and the same are still persisting. The complainant did not pay Rs.1,60,000/- to the opposite party and he is not entitled to get the said amount from the opposite party.
Managing Director of the opposite party never orally assured to return any amount. It is true that the opposite party had issued a notice demanding the complainant to clear the dues. The said notice was issued during the usual course of business, since the complainant had defaulted the monthly installments. As per the rules agreed between the parties, the complainant is not entitled to get back the entire amount he had remitted. The allowable deductions and commission of the opposite party has to be paid by the complainant. Apart from this, the complainant is not entitled to any interest also. There is no deficiency in service from the part of the opposite party. It is submitted that the complainant and his fellowmen purposefully joined the scheme with a malafide intention to bring the scheme to an end and to tarnish the reputation of the opposite party among the public, neglected the monthly payments and thereby the opposite party forced to pay the amount to the subscribers who regularly pay installments from other source. No cause of action for the complaint is arisen on 22-05-2017 or on 28-09-2017.
Complainant filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and got marked Ext.A1 to A10. No oral or documentary evidence adduced by the opposite party.
On evaluation of complaint, evidence and version on record, we would like to consider the following points.
- Whether the complaint is maintainable?
- Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the side of opposite party?
- If so, what are reliefs?
For the sake of convenience, we would like to consider point Nos.1 to 3 together.
Point Nos. 1, 2 and 3
There is no dispute on the fact that the complainant had joined MFMBS policy with the opposite party on 12-10-2013 and his subscriber No. is 8 of the said Scheme. Ext.A1 pass book of the said scheme proves that the sala of the said scheme is Rs.5,00,000/-. On perusal of the Ext.A1 we can see that the complainant had availed the service of the opposite party by subscribing a policy of Meenachil Farmers Mutual Benefit Scheme of the opposite party.
Thus we are of the opinion that the complainant is a consumer of the opposite party. The opposite party contented that the dispute between the complainant and opposite party is a dispute between the Member of the Co-operative Society and its Member. Thus the provisions of Section 69 of Kerala Co-operative Societies Act is prevailed in dispute between the Co-operative Society and its Member. No doubt a co-operative society is a special enactment and all the co-operative societies are governed by the said Act. But here in the case in hand the complainant seek remedy under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act for the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice committed by the opposite party. Moreover according to Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 is not in derogation of any other law. The Act shall be in addition and not in derogation of provisions of any other law for the time being in force. Therefore, the complainant can avail the remedy under Consumer Protection Act for the deficiency in service or unfair trade practice committed by the opposite parties apart from the remedy which are available to him under any other law in force. Thus we are of the opinion that this Commission has jurisdiction to entertain this complaint and complaint is maintainable.
As discussed earlier there is no dispute on the fact that the complainant had joined in MFMBS scheme with the 1st opposite party. According to the complainant he had paid Rs.1,60,000/- towards the said scheme and even after repeated demand the opposite party was not ready to return which was paid by the complainant as monthly instalment towards the said scheme. It is stated by the opposite party in the version that the huge amount from various institutions are due to the opposite party and thereby the opposite party faces serious financial problems and some are still persisting. Moreover it is further stated in the version that the complainant is eligible for the amount after the allowable deduction and commission of the opposite party. Ext.A9 which is a reply issued by the Assistant Registrar (General), Meenachil, Pala though the complainant had paid a total sum of Rs.1,59,250/- towards the MFMBS scheme of the opposite party by paying 17 monthly installments. It is further stated that the said scheme was a chitty for a total amount of Rs.5,00,000/- for a period of 40 months. Ext.A10 is a photocopy of reply sent by the Managing Director in charge to the Assistant Registrar of the Co-operative Societies (General), Meenachil, Pala. In Ext.A10 it is stated that the complainant had joined in MFMBS scheme with the opposite party for a total amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and he had paid 17 monthly installment with the opposite party. It is further stated in the Ext.A10 that the opposites party is bound to pay Rs.2,19,427/- to the complainant. It is further admitted in Ext.A10 due to the crisis which was faced by the opposite party co-operative society, the subscribers of the chitty are not ready to pay the installments. It is requested by the Managing Director of the opposite party to the Assistant Registrar (General) Meenachil, Pala to grant some time to repay the amount which was paid by the complainant.
Ext.A10 negatives the contention of the opposite party that the opposite party has faced any financial crisis. In the light of A10, we cannot accept the contention of the opposite party that the complainant and fellowmen with a malafide intention neglected the monthly payment of the MFMPS scheme to tarnish the repudiation of opposite party. Ext.A8 is an application form to join MFMBS scheme of the opposite parties. In clause 26 of the terms and conditions of the said scheme that if the scheme is discontinued due to the defect of the opposite party, the opposite party is bound to pay the amount which was paid by the members of the scheme along with the eligible bonus within 3 months from the date of default. The members of the scheme are entitled to recover the amount paid by them along with 6% interest. The opposite party did not dispute the genuity and authenticity of Ext.A8 application form. Thus we are of the opinion that the opposite party is liable to pay Rs.1,59,250/- with the bonus within 3 months from the date of default of MFMBS scheme. Vide Ext.A5, the letter dtd.06-06-2017 opposite party had assured that they would pay the amount to the complainant as soon as possible.
In the light of the above discussed and fruitful evaluation of the available evidence we are of the opinion that the complainant is entitled to get back Rs.1,59,250/- which is the amount paid by him towards the monthly subscription of the MFMBS scheme of the opposite party. It is evident from the available evidence that the opposite party has not paid the amount along with bonus to the complainant as per the terms and conditions entered between the complainant and opposite party. As discussed earlier if the opposite party had defaulted to pay the amount which was remitted by the complainant the opposite party is bound to pay the said amount to the complainant along with 6% interest. Thus we are of the opinion that as per Clause 26 of the terms and conditions of Ext.A8 the complainant is entitled to get back Rs.1,59,250/- alongwith 6% interest from the opposite party. The nonpayment of the said amount is deficiency in service from the side of the opposite party. No doubt the complainant had suffered much sufferings and loss due to the deficient act of the opposite party. The opposite party is liable to compensate the hardship and mental agony which was caused to the complainant by the opposite party. Therefore we allow the complaint and pass the following Order.
- We hereby direct the opposite party to pay Rs.1,59,250/- to the complainant along with 6% interest from 06-06-2017 till the date of realization.
- We hereby direct the opposite party to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant.
- We hereby direct the opposite party to pay Rs.2,500/- as cost of litigation.
Order shall be complied within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of Order.If not complied as directed, the award amount will carry 9% interest from the date of Order till realization.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed and typed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 19th day of July, 2021.
Sri. Manulal V.S. President Sd/-
Smt. Bindhu R, Member Sd/-
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member Sd/-
Appendix
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant
A1 : Copy of 1st page of M.F.M.B.S. pass book in the name of petitioner.
A2 : Copy of notice dtd.10-02-16 issued by opposite party to petitioner
A3 : Copy of reply notice dtd.22-02-16 by petitioner to the opposite party
A4 : Copy of notice dtd.22-05-17 by petitioner to the opposite party
A5 : Copy of reply notice dtd.06-06-17 by opposite party to petitioner
A6 : copy of notice dtd.28-09-17 by petitioner to the opposite party
A7 : Copy of postal AD card
A8 : Copy of application form with regard to the MFMBS scheme issued by the
opposite party
A9 : Letter No. G.584 dtd.27-03-19 by Public Information Officer/Office
Inspector, Assistant Registrar (Gen.) Meenachil, Pala to petitioner
A10:Copy of letter Ref. No. H.O./95/2019-20 dtd.31-08-19 by opposite party.
Exhibits marked on the side of opposite party
Nil
By Order
Senior Superintendent
