DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD
Dated this the 16th day of December 2022
Present : Sri.Vinay Menon V., President
: Smt.Vidya A., Member
: Sri.Krishnankutty N.K., Member
Date of Filing: 26.03.2021
CC/61/2021
Dr. P.S. Sukumaran Pilla,
S/O Late C.R. Sankarapilla,
Flat No. 5CD, Tower Number 1, - Complainant
Juwel 3 Appartment, Milma Road,
Kalleppulli (P.O), Palakkad -678 005
(By Adv. Draupathi Aravind)
Vs
1. The Secretary,
Palakkad Rural Co-Operative Society Ltd.
Near Stadium Bus Stand
Kunnathurmedu, Palakkad – 678 013
(Ex-parte)
2. The President
The Palakkad Rural co-Operative Society Ltd.
Kunnathurmedu - Opposite parties Palakkad -678 013
(Ex-parte)
O R D E R
By Smt.Vidya A., Member
Pleadings of the complainant in brief
1. Complainant deposited an amount of Rs. 1 Lakh with the opposite party. After one year, i.e., on 06/06/2014, this deposit was renewed with Fixed Deposit No: 603 for an amount of Rs. 1,17,000/- (Renewal of SB with effect from 06/02/2013). The complainant approached the opposite party on 06.02.2015 for withdrawal of the amount and the opposite parties asked 6 months time for returning the amount. Later when the complainant approached the opposite parties for money, they informed that the term of Fixed Deposit can be extended for another 2 years. Even after repeated requests by the complainant, they were not ready to issue the receipt for the renewed Fixed Deposit or to disclose when the money will be returned.
The opposite parties had made forged document extending the fixed deposit without informing or getting consent from the complainant. They did not issue the extended Fixed Deposit receipt to the complainant till date.
Because of the deficiency in service on the part of opposite party, the complainant had to arrange money from different sources. So this complaint is filed to direct the opposite parties to refund Rs. 1,17,000/- being the amount deposited together with interest at the rate of 9 % from 06.02.2013 amounting to Rs. 84,240/-, Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and other inconveniences suffered by the complainant and 15,000/- as cost of litigation (Total amount claimed is Rs.3,16,240).
2. Complaint was admitted and notices were issued to the opposite parties. Eventhough notices were served, the opposite parties did not appear before the Commission. So they were called in open court and set ex-parte.
3. The following points arise for consideration in this case.
- Whether there is any Deficiency in service/ Unfair Trade Practice
on the part of opposite parties?
- Whether the complaint is entitled to the reliefs claimed?
- Reliefs as cost and compensation.
4. Complainant filed proof affidavit in evidence but did not produce any
document. Evidence closed and heard the complainant.
5. Point No: 1
The complaint averment is that the complainant had deposited an amount of Rs. 1,17,000/- with the opposite party as Fixed Deposit with No. 603 on 06.06.2014 (Renewal of SB with effect from 06/02/2013). The duration of Fixed Deposit as per complaint is 1 year and in proof affidavit it is 2 years. When the complainant approached the opposite party on 06.02.2015 for withdrawing the amount, they were not ready to give the money.
On a later visit, the opposite parties told him that the period can be extended for another two years. But they did not issue the receipt for renewed Fixed Deposit and were not ready to disclose when they can return the amount. The complainant’s contention is that they made forged document extending the Fixed Deposit period without the knowledge and consent of the complainant. So they did not issue the Fixed Deposit certificate till date.
6. Eventhough the complainant filed chief affidavit, he has not produced any document showing the deposit of amount with the opposite party. Fixed deposit receipt issued by the opposite party at the time of depositing the amount is the crucial document in the case. (The complainant has not stated anywhere that the opposite parties took the receipt from him.) Since the complainant has failed to produce any documents showing the deposit, we are unable to grant the reliefs prayed for in the complaint.
In the result, the complaint is dismissed.
Pronounced in open court on this the 16th day of December 2022.
Sd/-
Vinay Menon V
President
Sd/-
Vidya.A
Member
Sd/-
Krishnankutty N.K.
Member
APPENDIX
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant - Nil
Documents marked from the side of Opposite parties - Nil
Witness examined from the side of complainant: Nil
Witness examined from the side of opposite parties: Nil
Cost: Nil
NB: Parties are directed to take back all extra set of documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5) of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 failing which they be weeded out.
