DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION PALAKKAD
Dated this the 11th day of July, 2022
Present : Sri.Vinay Menon V., President
: Smt.Vidya A., Member
: Sri. Krishnankutty N.K.,Member
Date of filing: 09.07.2021
CC/103/2021
Meera - Complainant
W/o Shambu Kumaran,
Akshara Nivas,
EMS Nagar,Karingarapully Post,
Palakkad- 678 551.
Vs
1. The Palakkad District Co-operative Rubber &
General Marketing Society Ltd, No.P561,
Malampuzha Road,Neelikkad,
Olavakkode Post,Palakkad- 678 651.
2. The Secretary - Opposite Parties
The Palakkad District Co-operative Rubber &
General Marketing Society Ltd,No.P561,
Malampuzha Road,Neelikkad,Olavakkode Post,
Palakkad- 678 651.
CC/104/2021
Date of filing: 22.07.2021
Shambukumaran - Complainant
S/o Late M.R.Ramakrishnan,
Akshara Nivas,E.M.S Nagar,
Karingarapully Post,
Palakkad- 678 551.
Vs
1. The Palakkad District Co-operative Rubber&
General Marketing Society Ltd, No.P561,
Malampuzha Road,Neelikkad,
Olavakkode Post,Palakkad- 678 651.
2. The Secretary - Opposite Parties
The Palakkad District Co-operative Rubber &
General Marketing Society Ltd,No.P561,
Malampuzha Road,Neelikkad,Olavakkode Post,
Palakkad- 678 651.
CC/160/2021
Date of filing: 01.10.2021
Shambukumaran - Complainant
S/o Late M.R.Ramakrishnan,
Akshara Nivas,E.M.S Nagar,
Karingarapully Post,
Palakkad- 678 551.
Vs
1. The Palakkad District Co-operative Rubber&
General Marketing Society Ltd, No.P561,
Malampuzha Road,Neelikkad,
Olavakkode Post,Palakkad- 678 651.
2. The Secretary - Opposite Parties
The Palakkad District Co-operative Rubber &
General Marketing Society Ltd,No.P561,
Malampuzha Road,Neelikkad,Olavakkode Post,
Palakkad- 678 651.
(Adv. G.Abhilash for complainants)
(Adv.A.V.Ravi for Opposite parties)
O R D E R
By Smt.Vidya A., Member
CC 103/2021 is filed by the wife of complainant in CC 104/2021 and CC 160/2021. Since all the three matters are filed against the same opposite parties claiming return of the amount deposited with the opposite parties by husband and wife, IA 193/2021 was filed in CC 103/2021 seeking joint trial all the three cases. Joint trial of these cases was allowed with CC-103/2021 as the lead case.
1. Pleadings of the complainant in brief
The complainants had made three fixed deposits with the opposite party society, to the tune of Rs.6,09,048/-, Rs.6,03,691/- and Rs. 2,58,123/- on 16/06/2020 and 15.07.2020 respectively as fixed deposits for a period of 1 year with interest at the rate of 7.25%. These amounts were renewed by the opposite parties and on maturation, the complainant approached the opposite party to withdraw the amounts in the FD together with interest . But the opposite parties had expressed their inability to repay the amounts as there was no sufficient funds in the society.
The complainants had deposited the amount based on the assurances and promises held out by the opposite parties.
The complainants had suffered financial loss and mental agony because of the conduct of the opposite parties. The complainants had caused to issue Lawyer Notice to the opposite parties. Even after receiving the notice, the opposite parties did not give any reply or refund the amount. The conduct of the opposite parties amount to Deficiency in service. So these complaints are filed for refunding the amounts due to the complainants together with interest at 12% from the date of deposit onwards and to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation together with cost of this litigation.
2. Complaints were admitted and notices were issued to the opposite parties. The opposite parties entered appearance and filed their version.
3. The opposite parties in their version denied the entire averments in the complaints.
They contended that the above complaints are legally unsustainable and the Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaints under Section 69 and Section 100 of The Kerala Co-operative Societies Act 1969. They submitted that there is no elected Board of Management in the society and they have tendered their resignation to the Govt./Co-operative Department. Apart from that, presently the society is dormant and not functioning and the opposite party society is under the verge of liquidation and the process of liquidation is to be initiated by the Co-operative Department in Kerala State. In this circumstance, even if the complainants has got any grievance, the remedy is to approach the Liquidator/ Department of Co-operation for Redressal of her grievance.
The complainant in CC 104/2021 was working as Secretary in the opposite party society earlier and he had retired from service. The complainants has no financial capacity to deposit such a huge amount and the so called deposit was only a book adjustment of the opposite party society at the time of retirement of Shambukumaran. The opposite party society is dormant for quite long time and the salary of the employees is also not disbursed during the period of service of the employees including that of the complainant’s husband while he was in service of the society. At the time of his retirement from the service of the opposite party society, instead of effecting actual payment of retirement benefits, the same has been considered as deposit in the society and it was done by Shambukumaran himself. No amount has been paid in liquid cash towards fixed deposit as claimed by the complainants and it is only a book adjustment. There is no Deficiency in service or breach of promise as claimed by the complainants. The complainants are very much aware of the present situation of the opposite party society and the complainant in CC 104/2021 is also responsible for the present condition of the society which lead to liquidation process.
There is no cause of action and the allegations in the complaint are false, frivolous and vexatious and the complaints has to be dismissed with cost of the opposite party.
4. . Main points arising for consideration are framed.
1. Whether the jurisdiction of this Commission is barred in view of Sections 69 and 100 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act,1969?
2. Whether the Commission has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as the opposite party society is on the verge of liquidation as stated by opposite party ?
3. Whether the nature of payment of issuance of FDR oust the jurisdiction of this Commission ?
4. Whether there is any Deficiency in service on the part of opposite party in not returning the FD amount?
5. Whether the complainants are entitled to the reliefs claimed.
6. Reliefs as to cost and compensation.
5. The complaint was heard on the basis of the admissions made in the version and taken for orders.
6. Point No.1
The opposite parties’ contention is that the Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint in view of Section 69 & Section 100 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act 1969. It is pertinent to note that Section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act makes provision for adjudication of disputes between two co- operative societies or between a co operative society on one side and another person on the other side in connection with matters pertaining to fiscal, managerial or administrative functions of a co- operative society.
The reliefs provided by the Consumer Protection Act, a subsequent Central Statute, does not take away any remedial measures provided by the Co-Operative Societies Act, but is only in addition to what Co-Operative Societies Act provides. There is no repugnancy between the two statues and both the status can amicably occupy and adjudicate in their respective subject matters.
This Commission is only concerned with the issue of Deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party society and it has jurisdiction to entertain the matter pertaining to that point.
Section 100 says “No civil or revenue court shall have any jurisdiction in respect of any matter for which provision is made in the Act”. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has often held that this authority constituted under the Consumer Protection Act is not a civil court.
Hence we hold that this Commission has jurisdiction to try this dispute. Point No.1 is decided accordingly.
Point No.2
7. The opposite parties in their version states that there is no elected Board of Management in the society and they have tendered their resignation to the Govt./Co-operative Department. They further contended that presently the opposite party society is dormant and not functioning and it is under the verge of liquidation and the process of liquidation is to be initiated by the Co-Operative Department in Kerala State . Under the said circumstances, even if the complainant has got any grievances, the remedy is to approach the Liquidator/Department of Co-operation for Redressal of their grievance.
But the opposite parties have not produced any documents pertaining to this to substantiate their claim that the society is under liquidation. There was a direction from this Commission to the opposite party to produce the order of winding up. They have not complied with this. In the absence of any documents, we are unable to accept their plea. Point No. 2 is decided accordingly.
8. Points 3,4,5 & 6.
Points 3 to 6 are considered together.
The opposite parties in their version contended that Shambukumaran was working as Secretary in the opposite party society earlier and at present is retired from service. At the time of retirement, instead of effecting actual payment of retirement benefits, the amounts so due was converted as Fixed Deposits in the society.
So the opposite parties admitted that the Fixed Deposits were effected by the complainants in their society. We are not concerned about the nature of payment; the only thing to be considered is whether the complainant’s husband made Deposit of the amount with the opposite party. Complainants produced photo copy ( in CCs 103/2021 ) and originals (in CC 104/2021 & CC 160/2021) of the Fixed Deposit receipts issued by the opposite party showing a composite deposit of Rs.14,70,862/- with 7.25% interest per annum.
The opposite parties did not produce any document to show that the amount deposited as fixed deposit in their Society was given to the complainant on attaining maturity. Further they also admitted that they are not in a position to effect repayment of the amounts due. So there is deficiency in service on their part in not disbursing the amount on attaining maturity as per complainants’ demand and they are bound to compensate the complainants for deficiency in service.
In the result, the complaints are allowed as herein below.
CC/103/2021
We direct the opposite parties to pay Rs. 6,09,048/- (Six lakhs nine thousand and forty eight only) together with interest at the rate of 7.25% from 16.06.2020 till realization.
We further direct the opposite party to pay Rs.5,000/- (Five Thousand only) as compensation for their deficiency in service, and for the mental agony and financial loss suffered by the complainant and 2,500/- (Two Thousand Five Hundred only) as cost of this litigation.
CC 104/2021
We direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.6,03,691/- together with interest at the rate of 7.25 % from 16.06.2020 till realization and to pay 5,000/-(Five Thousand only) as compensation for their deficiency in service, and for the mental agony and financial loss, Rs.2,500/- (Two Thousand Five Hundred only)as cost of this litigation.
CC 160/2021,
We direct the opposite party to pay Rs.2,58,123/- together with interest at the rate of 7.25% from 15/07/20 till realization and to pay Rs.5,000/- (Five Thousand only) as compensation for this deficiency in service and for the mental agony & financial loss suffered by the complainant, Rs 2,500/- (Two Thousand Five Hundred only)as cost of this litigation.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 11th day of July, 2022.
Sd/-
Vinay Menon V
President
Sd/-
Vidya A
Member
Sd/-
Krishnankutty N.K
Member
Appendix
Exhibits marked on the side of complainant
Nil
Exhibits marked on the side of Opposite parties
Nil
Witness examined from complainant’s side:- NIL
Witness examined from opposite party’s side:- NIL
Cost:2500/-in each case.
