D.O.F:05/07/2022
D.O.O:25/08/2023
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KASARAGOD
CC.141/2022
Dated this, the 25th day of August 2023
PRESENT:
SRI.KRISHNAN.K : PRESIDENT
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
V.Rama,
W/o. Raghu. M.T
Thaikeel, ‘Sreeragam’
Thrikaripur, Hosdurg Taluk
Kasaragod - Dist : Complainant
(Adv: Jayanarayanan.P.K)
And
Secretary,
Thrikarippur Agriculturist
Co-operative Society
Thrikaripur, Hosdurg Taluk, : Opposite Party
Kasaragod Dist. 671310.
(Adv: M. Rameshan)
ORDER
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
This complaint is filed under section 35 of Consumer protection Act 2019. The complainant is the daily collection agent of opposite party society from 08/11/2016 to 01/06/2019. At the time of joining as a daily collection agent of the society she had deposited an amount of Rs. 50,000/- as FD in opposite party society. At the time of joining as a daily collection agent the financial foundation of opposite party society was very poor. As a result of the hard work she could raise the daily collection amount of the opposite party up to Rs. 4 lakhs. There are about 350 daily customers under her in the society. As a result of a false complaint of a customer against the complainant, she was suspended from the post of daily collection agent of the society. Thereafter the customer withdrawn the complaint and the society also withdrawn the suspension against the complainant. The suspension of the opposite party society caused severe mental agony and loss to the complainant. The complainant made all efforts to get refund of the FD amount of Rs. 50,000/- from the society. But so far it is not given. So the complainant is seeking direction against the opposite party society to get refund of the FD amount of Rs. 50,000/- with interest, compensation and cost.
The opposite party filed version admitting that the complainant was a temporary daily collection agent of the opposite party society from 10/11/2016 to 01/06/2019. There were many complaints against her from customers for misbehavior. The complainants behavior towards the customers were very bad and there were correction in pass book of customers and she had hesitation to accept collection amount from customers. She had been warned by the opposite party society for the misbehaviour in earlier also. When the same complaint repeated opposite party society was constrained to take disciplinary action against the complainant. The opposite party’s society was ready to refund her FD of Rs. 50000/- as soon as getting application from her after getting audit report of 2019-20. The complainant had already received the interest of the aforesaid amount till 09/062019.
The complainant filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and Ext A1 and A2 marked. Ext A1 is the copy of the notice sent by the complainant to opposite parties, Ext A2 is the reply notice. The opposite party also filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination but he was not cross examined by the complainant Ext B1 to B3 marked. Ext B1 is the lawyer notice, Ext B2 and B3 are the letters given by the secretary of opposite party’s society to the complainant. Both sides heard and documents perused.
The issues raised for consideration are
- Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party in non-refund of the FD amount?
- Whether the complainant is entitled for relief?
- If so, what is the relief?
For convenience issue No: 1,2, and 3 can be discussed together
Here the complainant is a daily collection agent of opposite party. At the time of joining, she had deposited an amount of Rs. 50,000/- to the society. As a result of her hard work the daily collection amount of the society raised up to Rs. 4,00,000/-. As a result of a false complaint of a customer against the complainant for misbehavior she had been suspended from the post. There after the customer withdrawn the complaint and society also withdrawn the suspension against the complainant. The, unauthorized suspension caused severe mental agony and loss to the complainant. Moreover, her FD amount of Rs. 50,000/- was not refunded to her so far. The first contention raised by op is that this complaint is not maintainable before this commission as they have separate grievance redressal cell. According to cp act, The complainant is at liberty to approach proper forum for the redressal of grievance.
We perused the documents produced by both parties. At the time of argument the opposite parties counsel informed that they are ready to disburse the FD amount as soon as an application is given by the complainant. Hence it is very clear that there is no need for a detailed evaluation of evidence. There is no deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party. Hence complainant is not entitled for compensation. The prayer of the complainant is to refund of the FD amount with interest.
Therefore complaint is allowed directing Opposite parties to refund Rs. 50,000/-(Rupees Fifty thousand only) with 9% interest from 09/06/2019 till disbursement with a cost of Rs. 3000/-(Rupees Three thousand only) to the complainant within 30 days of the receipt of copy of this order. The complainant is hereby directed to approach the bank with the application at the earliest.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exhibits
A1- Lawyer notice
A2- Reply notice
B1- Lawyer notice
B2- Letter Dt: 24/11/2021
B3- Letter Dt: 01/12/2021
Witness Examined
Pw1- Rema. V
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Forwarded by Order
Ps/ Assistant Registrar
