D.O.F:01/09/2022
D.O.O:31/01/2023
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KASARAGOD
CC.No.206/2022
Dated this, the 31st day of January 2023
PRESENT:
SRI.KRISHNAN.K :PRESIDENT
SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M : MEMBER
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
Balagopal Karimbil, aged 60 years
R/at “Deviprabha”,
Konnakkad, Malom Village, : Complainant
Vellarikundu Taluk,
P.O.Konnakkadu- 671532
(Adv. A. Radhakrishnan)
And
The Kasaragod District Co-operative
Rubber Marketing Society Ltd.,
No.C.325, Chittarikkal, Chittarikkal Village,
Vellarikundu Taluk, : Opposite Party
P.O. Chittarikkal- 671326
Represented by its President
ORDER
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
The brief fact of the case is that the opposite party is a marketing society registered under the co-operative societies Act for marketing the Rubber producers and collecting FD from members and public.
The complainant made a deposit in the name of his son Praglath, who is a member of opposite party’s society and the amount deposited was Rs.1,66,664/- bearing receipt No.A5795 dated 19/08/2017. The due date of FD was on 19/02/2018 the rate of interest offered is 9%. The opposite party has not permitted the complainant to withdraw the amount on maturity. The complainant was in need of money and had approached opposite party for closing the aforesaid FD several times, but opposite party dragged the matter by telling flimsy reasons. The complainant had approached the office of opposite party several times and at last he caused to send a lawyer notice to opposite party on 5/05/2022. The opposite party not accepted the notice and it is returned as refused. The complainant suffered huge loss and mental agony due to the illegal act of opposite party. The complainant is alleging unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and claims a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- along with refund of the FD.
Notice of opposite party served, name of opposite party called absent set exparte.
The complainant filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination. The documents produced are marked as Ext.A1 to A3. The questions raised for consideration are :-
- Whether there is deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party
- If so, what is the relief?
For convenience issue no.1 and 2 can be discussed together.
The complainant made a deposit with opposite party’s society for Rs.1,66,664/- in the name of his son Praglath. Ext.A1 is the receipt issued by opposite party for Rs.1,66,664/- the due date shown in Ext.A1 is 19/02/2018. After the maturity date the complainant approached opposite party several times for the refund of the said FD amount but opposite party has evaded from refunding the FD amount with interest. Finally the complainant caused to send a lawyer notice which is marked as Ext.A2. Ext.A3 is the refused notice. The complainant is alleging unfair trade practice and deficiency inservice as they failed to refund the FD amount with interest on maturity. Ext.A2 and A3 proved the case of the complainant. In the absence of rebuttal evidence the complainant is entitled to get the FD amount with compensation and cost. Considering the circumstances of this complaint we allows the prayer of the complainant for a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- from opposite party.
Therefore the complaint is allowed directing opposite party to refund Rs.1,66,664/- (Rupees One Lakh Sixty Six Thousand Six Hundred and Sixty Four only)covered by the FD No.A/5795 with a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- ( Rupees Two Lakh only) and with a cost of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand Only)to the complainant within 30 days from receipt of copy of the judgment.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exhibit
A1: Fixed Deposit Receipt
A2: Lawyer notice
A3: Refused notice
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Forwarded by Order
Assistant Registrar
Ps/
