SRI. K. ANIRUDHAN (MEMBER) Sri. N.S. Jayadevan has filed this complaint before the Forum on 29.11.08 against the opposite parties alleging deficiency in service in repayment of the deposited amounts. The brief facts of the allegations of the complainant are as follows:- The opposite parties had jointly contacted him and persuaded to deposit amounts in the first opposite party Trust administered by them. On the basis of the assurance of the opposite parties, he had deposited an amount of Rs.2,000/- on 29.04.91. All the transactions were noted in the Pass book issued to him by the opposite parties. But after 02.06.06, he had not obtained interest from the opposite parties. He had to get the balance amount of Rs.7,000/-. On several occasions, he had requested the opposite parties to return the amounts with interest. But the opposite parties had not taken any steps to release the deposited amount to him. The first opposite parties have sufficient assets and that the opposite parties have diverted the funds for their personal gains. Hence this complaint seeking an order to get back the deposited amount with other reliefs. 2. Notices were issued to the parties. Opposite parties 2 and 5, 6, 7 and 8 entered appearance and filed their objection. Considering the absence of opposite parties 1, 3 and 4, they were set exparte by this Forum. 3. In the version filed by the opposite parties 2 and 5, they have stated that the adhoc committee is discharging and administering the whole affairs of the Samithi with effect from 27.5.2007. So, without impleading the whole committee members, the complaint is not maintainable. It is stated that the 2nd opposite party had no role, exempt a participation in the meeting of the said Trust and that the entire day to day affairs of the Trust had been done by the 3rd opposite party alone. It is stated that the 5th opposite party was only a clerk of the said Trust and she was neither an office bearer nor a representative of the Trust. More over, the 2nd opposite party being only a former President is also an unnecessary party. It is stated that a huge amount under various heads is due from the 3rd opposite party towards the funds of the Trust and he had acknowledged the same and agreed to pay off the said amount and due to the irresponsibility of the 3rd opposite party, so many loss was caused to the Trust and steps are being taken. It is further stated that they were unaware of the alleged interest received by the complainant and they are not liable to pay any amount to the complainant, and denied the deposit amount of Rs.7,000/- on 29.04.91 in the Trust at their instances. 4. In the objection filed by the opposite parties 6 and 7, they have stated that 6th opposite party was only a Board Member of the said Trust during the period 2006 and he was the Vice President of the Prardhana Samithi, which was a separate entity with the Trust. It is stated that 7th opposite party was resigned the post of Secretary of the said Prardhana Samithi on 9.8.2005 and he was the only Member of the Trust up to 15.8.2005 and that the 6th opposite party has no connection either with the Trust or Prardhana Samithi from 2005 on wards. It is further stated that they have no connection with the financial matters of the Trust and the Prardhana Samithi. The administrative and financial matters of the Trust were conducted by the President and Secretary, and that the Secretary was the receiver of deposits and retained the account thereon. In the objection filed by the 8th opposite party, it is stated that he is not the office bearer or the member of the Trust and not responsible for the day to day affairs of the Trust. He has no knowledge about the complainant and not persuaded the complainant to deposit the amount and that he was not entitled to the payment of the amount remitted by the complainant. He is not member in the Trust and the complainant is not entitled to get any relief from him. 5. Considering the contentions of the parties; this Forum has raised the issues:- 1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties? 2) Compensation and costs. 6. Issues 1 and 2:- On the side of the complainant, he has filed proof affidavit and produced documents in evidence. Document Exts.A1 marked and he has been examined and cross examined by the opposite parties 2 and 5, opposite parties 6 and 7. Ext.A1 is the original Pass book issued in favour of the complainant (Membership No.3/307). It shows that Rs.2,000/- was deposited on 29.04.1991 and further shows the details of further transactions of the complainant with the opposite parties. The pass book further shows that an amount of Rs.7,000/- is the outstanding amount as on 18.07.06. 7. On the side of the opposite parties; they have not filed any proof affidavit. On a detailed verification of the entire matter of this case, and the perusal of the documents given, in evidence, it can be seen that on the basis of the assurance of the opposite parties, the complainant deposited a sum of Rs.2,000/- before the trust administered by the opposite parties. The opposite parties after accepting the said deposits, issued original pass book for the said amount after signed by the Secretary of the Trust (Exts.A1). The Pass book also shows deposit amounts, on different dates and the balance amount to be paid comes to Rs.7,000/- . In spite of the repeated requests of the complainant, the opposite parties had not taken any earnest steps to release the amount outstanding in the name of the complainant. He is fully entitled to get back the amounts from the opposite parties. The opposite parties cannot escape from the liability by stating that they are not liable, since the entire assets of the said Trust is administered by the opposite parties now. The contentions raised by the opposite parties against the repayment of amounts to the complainant cannot be accepted, since it has no merit. The contentions raised by the opposite parties against the repayment of amount to the complainant cannot be accepted, since it has no locus standi. The willful denial of repayment of the said deposit to the complainant with interest by the opposite parties will amounts to grossest deficiency in service, culpable negligence and cheating. The action of the opposite parties are wholly illegal, arbitrary and unauthorized. There is no justification on the part of the opposite parties in retaining the deposited amounts of the complainant with them indefinitely. The opposite parties are jointly and severally liable for this repayment to the complainant and they are equally answerable to the complainant. Since there is grossest deficiency in service, culpable negligence and cheating on the part of the opposite parties by way of denial of repayment of the deposited amounts with interest to the complainant in time, the complainant is fully entitled to get compensation and costs from the opposite parties. Hence we are of the strong view that the complaint is to be allowed. All the issues are in favour of the complainant. In the result, we hereby direct the opposite parties 1 to 4 and 6 and 7 to repay the balance deposit amount of Rs.7,000/- to the complainant with the interest at the rate of 12% from 02.06.06 up to the date of repayment of the entire amount, and pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/ (Rupees ten thousand only) to the complainant for his mental agony, sufferings, loss, physical strain and inconvenience; due to the grossest deficiency in service, culpable negligence and cheating by way of denial of repayment of the deposit amount in time by the opposite parties to the complainant, and pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) as costs of this proceedings. We further direct the opposite parties to pay the said amounts within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. . Sd/- Sri. K. Anirudhan Sd/- Sri. Jimmy Korah Sd/- Smt. N. Shajitha Beevi Appendix:- Evidence of the complainant:- PW1 - N.S. Jayadevan (Witness) Ext.A1 - Pass book Evidence of the opposite parties:- Nil // True Copy // By Order Senior Superintendent To Complainant/Opposite parties/S.F. Typed by:- vo/- Compared by:- |
