IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

             KOLLAM

                                             C.C.No. 108/2024

                                                                                                PRESENT

SMT. S.K.SREELA, B.A.L, LL.B, PRESIDENT

SRI. STANLY HAROLD, B.A.LL.B, MEMBER 

                      ORDER DATED:   22.06.2024

BETWEEN

Susheela Kumari L.,

Surabhi, Mukhathala P.O.,

Kollam.                                                                              :        Complainant

AND

1. The Pattathanam Vanitha Co-operative

Society Ltd.No.Q 1521,

Pattathanam P.O.,

Kollam-21, Rep.by its Secretary.

2. The President,

The Pattathanam Vanitha Co-operative

Society Ltd.No.Q 1521,

Pattathanam P.O.,

3. The Secretary,

The Pattathanam Vanitha Co-operative

Society Ltd.No.Q 1521,                                             :       Opposite parties

Pattathanam P.O.,

ORDER

S.K.SREELA, PRESIDENT

1. The brief facts of the complaint are as follows:-The complainant  deposited a total amount of Rs.1,80,000/- in the opposite party society as follows:

   2. Accordingly the total amount payable with interest as on the date of maturity is Rs.1,94,887/-. The opposite party failed to release the deposited amount to the complainant and hence this complaint for realization of the amount along with compensation and costs.

            3. The opposite parties accepted the notice issued by this Commission but failed to appear or file their versions. Consequently, the opposite parties were set ex parte. The complainant’s authorization holder was examined as PW1, and Exhibits P1 to P3  were marked. Since the opposite parties remained absent, no cross-examination was recorded. The complainant's part was heard, and the opposite parties' part was taken as heard.

     4. The issues for consideration are: -

1. Whether there has been any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief claimed?
3. Compensation and Costs.?

      5.      Points 1 to 3: The grievance of the complainant is that the amount deposited with the opposite parties has not been refunded as assured. The complainant has produced Exhibits P1 to P3 documents to corroborate their contention. As per the Exhibits produced, it is evident that the complainant had deposited a total amount of Rs.1,80,000/- by way of three fixed deposits vide Exhibits P1 to P3  with interest at 7.75, 8.75 & 9% 9% per annum respectively.   The complainant pleads that the amount has not been released to them, even after maturity period prompting the complainant to approach this Commission. The complainant's pleadings have been corroborated by the evidence of PW1, which stands unchallenged as the opposite parties failed to cross-examine.

          6. From the above, we find that the complainant has succeeded in establishing their complaint beyond any doubt. The complainant has pleaded that the rate of interest promised by the opposite party is as discussed supra.  However, as the opposite parties have failed to release the amount with the accrued interest as agreed upon the deposited amount, they are liable to pay interest at 12% per annum from the due date of payment.

         7. As the opposite parties have never turned up to deny the allegations leveled against them, we find the act of the opposite parties in non-refunding the deposited amount, as per Exhibits P1 to P3, amounts to unfair trade practice leading to a deficiency in service on their part. This has caused financial and emotional distress to the complainant, necessitating the filing of this complaint. Hence, we find the claim of the complainant to be reasonable.

        8. The mental agony of such depositors has to be taken into consideration. They have been given false assurances and made to suffer, forcing them to approach this Commission by filing this complaint for redressal of their grievances, which is solely due to the deficient act of the opposite parties.

       9. The interest rate of 12% per annum from the due date of payment as pleaded by the complainant, is found to be reasonable as the same serves as a penalty for the opposite parties' failure to fulfill their contractual obligation.

     10. In the result, the complaint is allowed. The opposite parties are directed to refund Rs.1,02,365/- with 12% interest from 17.12.2017 and Rs.54,375/- with 12% interest from 27.10.2018 and Rs.38,150/- with 12% interest from 14.06.2018 till realisation, along with compensation of Rs. 10,000/- and costs of Rs. 5,000/-. The time for compliance is 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of the order,  failing which execution proceedings can be initiated.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant  Smt. Minimol S. transcribed and typed by her corrected by me and pronounced in the  Open Commission this the 22^nd  day of  June 2024.

Sd/-

S.K.SREELA

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

STANLY HAROLD

MEMBER

 Forwarded/by Order                                                                

                              Senior superintendent

INDEX

Witnesses Examined for the Complainant:-

PW1                :Chandrasekharan Pillai

Document marked for the  complainant

Ext.P1             : Fixed Deposit Receipt dated 18.12.2016

Ext.P2             : Fixed Deposit Receipt dated 28.10.2017

Ext.P3             : Fixed Deposit Receipt dated 15.06.2017

Witnesses Examined for the opposite parties:-Nil

Documents marked for opposite parties:-Nil                                                                      

Sd/-

PRESIDENT