D.O.F. 21.01.2012

                                            D.O.O. 18.12.2013

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KANNUR

Present:      Sri. K.Gopalan                   :                President

                   Smt. Sona Jayaraman K.  :               Member

                   Sri. Babu Sebastian         :               Member

Dated this the 18^th day of December, 2013.

C.C.No.20/2012

P.U. Vasu Nambiar,

S/o. P.V. Kannan Nambiar,                                 :         Complainant

‘Sreevalsam’

P.O. Keezhara, Kannapuram

Kannur – 670 301

(Rep. by Adv. P.V. Abhayakumar))

1. The President,

   Cherukunnu-Kannapuram Vanitha -

   Co-operative Society Ltd.,

    No.C.1225, P.O. Cherukunnu-670301,

    Kannapuram

    Kannur                                                             :         Oppostie Parties  

2. Cherukunnu-Kannapuram Vanitha -

   Co-operative Society Ltd.,   

    Rep. by its Secretary,

    P.O. Cherukunnu-670301, 

    Kannapuram

    Kannur  

(OP No.1 & 2 rep. by Adv. R.P. Remesan)

3. K. Jayalakshmi,

    ‘Kunnummal House’, Chunda,

    P.O.Mottammal, Kannur Dist.

(Rep. by Adv. O.K. Saseendran)

O R D E R

Sri. K. Gopalan, President

          This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection

 Act for an order directing the opposite parties to pay `52,293 with interest and an amount of `42,000 as compensation.

          Complainant’s case in brief as given below:  Complainant had deposited an amount of `50,000 with the opposite party on 26.05.2011 for a period of six months with an assurance of 9% interest ie maturity value of `52,293.  On 28.11.2011 F.D. receipt was sent for collection. But it was returned on 10.12.2011 with return memo dated 10.12.2011 showing that there is no fund in the Bank.  Complainant was constrained to raise fund from local money lenders for high rate of interest since he was in urgent need of money, whereby, he was compelled to pay `12000.  The said amount `50000 was an amount renewed after the maturity of earlier deposit due to the repeated request of 3^rd opposite party.  Opposite parties are jointly and severally liable for the loss of complainant.  Hence this complaint.

          Pursuant to the notice 1^st and 2^nd opposite party made appearance and filed version.  As per the contentions raised in the version 3^rd opposite party also impleaded and thus made appearance and filed version subsequently.  1^st and 2^nd opposite party in their version jointly filed contended as follows  :  It is true that complainant made deposit and the FD receipt sent for collection was returned.  It is not a deliberate act to deny the amount.  The complainant deposited the amount when Smt. K. Jayalakshmi was holding the post of the Secretary. The said Vijayalakshmi misappropriated an amount of `21,07,202 from the society. Now the society is not in a position to discharge it liability.  Since there is no funds with the society, the said Vijayalakshmi was dismissed from service and criminal case has been initiated against her.  The above said Vijayalakshmi, the then Secretary, who committed the misappropriation of funds and put the society in disruption is liable to pay to the complainant the entire amount with interest and compensation.

          3^rd opposite party in her separate version contended thus : the opposite party is unaware of the deposit made by the complainant.  At the relevant period this opposite party has no connection with 1^st and 2^nd opposite party.  She was working as a Secretary till 19.01.2011.  3^rd opposite party was dismissed on false and fabricated charges that too without conducting any enquiry.  This opposite party has not misused or misappropriated any money of Society or its customers.  This opposite party has taken legal steps against the wrongful dismissal by the Society.  There is no cause of action against this opposite party.  Hence to dismiss the complaint against this opposite party.

          On the above pleadings the following issues have been taken for consideration.

1.  Whether there is any deficiency on the part of opposite parties?  If so who is liable?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to the remedy as prayed?
3. Relief and cost.

The evidence consist of the oral evidence adduced by PW1, DW1 and documentary evidence Ext.A1 to A3 marked on the side of the complainant and also Ext.B1 marked on the side of 3^rd opposite party.

Issues No.1 to 3 :

          Admittedly complainant deposited `50,000 with opposite party for a period of six months.   Though the F.D. receipt was surrendered for collection on maturity it was retained.

          Complainant adduced evidence in tune with the affidavit evidence.  He has categorically stated that F.D. receipt was returned with memo showing that there is no fund in the Bank.  Ext.A1 is the F.D. receipt for an amount of `1,00,000 which is shown closed on 26.05.2011.  Ext.A2 is the F.D. receipt for `50,000 and Ext.A3 is the letter of Manager as return memo stating that they were not in a position to return the amount on reason of lack of fund.  Ext.A1 proves that complainant was having the deposit previously and the F.D. in question had been made on the same date of closing Ext.A1.  Ext.A3  made clear that the money was not returned since there was no fund with the Bank.   Bank at that time has no case that they were not liable to pay the amount.  They have also no case that it was 3^rd opposite party who was liable to pay the amount.  Moreover, 3^rd opposite party contended that on the day of issuing F.D. receipt Ext.A2 she was not acting as Secretary of the Bank.  Deposit as per Ext.A2 was made on 26.05.2011.  3^rd opposite party contended that she was working as Secretary till 19.01.2011.  Complainant deposed in cross examination that “50,000/- രൂപ deposit ചെയ്യുമ്പോൾ ഞാൻ 3^rd opposite partyയെ സ്ഥാപനത്തിൽ കണ്ടിട്ടില്ല.” Complainant further deposed that she was not aware whether 3^rd opposite party had any relation with the said transation.

          The evidence of DW1 goes to show that they are liable to return the amount .  DW1 adduced evidence for 2^nd opposite party also.  DW1 deposed in cross examination that “പരാതിക്കാരന് പണം പലിശ അടക്കം തിരിച്ചു കൊടുക്കാൻ ഞങ്ങൾ  ബാധ്യസ്ഥർ ആണ്.”  It is a fact that the money is deposited in a bank.  Bank is always liable to return the money on the maturity of the deposit.  If any amount is appropriated by any employee of the Bank the consumer is not liable to suffer the loss.  It is the bank who has to take steps to realize the amount from such employee.  Bank is always liable to return the money to the depositor. Hence we are of opinion that 1^st and 2^nd opposite party are liable to return the money.  Complainant is also entitled for the interest upon the amount.  Thus the issues No.1 to 3 is answered in favour of complainant.

          In the result, complaint is allowed directing 1^st and 2^nd opposite party to return the deposited amount `50,000 (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) to complainant with interest @ 9% from the date of the deposit till realization of the amount.  We are avoiding compensation taking into consideration the circumstances of the case.  But complainant is also entitled for an amount `1000 (Rupees One Thousand only) as cost of this litigation.  Opposite party shall execute the order within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which complainant is at liberty to exectute the order after the expiry of 30 days.

          Dated this the 18^th day of December, 2013.

                           Sd/-                      Sd/-               Sd/-

                       President               Member          Member   

APPENDIX

Exhibits for the Complainant

A1.   FD receipt for `1,00,000.

A2.   FD receipt for `50,000.

A3.   Letter from 1^st OP dated 10.12.2011.

Exhibits for the opposite party

B1. Copy of letter dated 19.01.2011

Witness examined for the complainant

PW1. Complainant

Witness examined for opposite party

DW1.  Valasala E.

      /forwarded by order/

                                                                     SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT