DATE OF FILING : 20.7.2014
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI
Dated this the 30th day of May, 2018
Present :
SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR PRESIDENT
SRI. BENNY. K. MEMBER
CC NO.292/2014
Between
Complainant : Santhosh, S/o. Sasidharan,
Kavullattu House,
Kochuthovala, Idukki.
(By Adv: Saji Augustine)
And
Opposite Parties : 1. Sree Narayana Dharma
Paripalana Yogam,
Kollam
Represented by
The Secretary,
SNDP Yogam Office, Kollam.
2. Sree Narayana Dharma
Paripalana Yogam,
Kochuthovala Branch No.1510
Represented by
The Secretary,
E.T. Mohanan,
Eyyappattu House,
Kattappana, Idukki.
(By Advs: P.R. Muraleedharan
& Eby Thomas)
O R D E R
SRI, S, GOPAKUMAR, PRESIDENT
Case of the complainant is that,
Complainant is the permanent member of SNDP Yogam, Kochuthovala Branch from 1988 onwards. 1st opposite party is a non-profitable company registered under the Companies Act and 2nd opposite party is its branch secretary. The father of the complainant was served as secretary of the 1st opposite party’s Thovala branch for a long period and from 2012 onwards 2nd opposite party is continuing the office as
(cont.....2)
- 2 -
secretary. Complainant’s elder brother’s marriage was in the month of April 2012 and for that purpose complainant’s family remitted an amount of Rs.10,925/- in different heads to the 2nd opposite party, as a custom prevailing therein and for issuing pathrika for the marriage.
While so, there arose some difference of opinion with the 2nd opposite party and the father of the complainant and this issue is under the consideration of SNDP Union, Malanadu. Afterwards, the complainant’s marriage was fixed and agreed to conduct the marriage on 31.8.2014 at Chotti. As per the by-law of the SNDP Yogam, it is mandatory to exchange Vivaha Pathrika in between the bride and groom and register their marriage in the sakha yogam as per clause 16(1) of the by-law of sakha yogam. For that purpose, the complainant approached the 1st opposite party, who is the authority to issue vivaha pathrika and register the marriage, on 25.8.2014 and at that time, the 2nd opposite party refused to issue the vivaha pathrika due to the enimical attitude towards the father of the complainant. against this, the complainant filed a petition before the SNDP Union, but they had not taken any action.
The complainant further pleaded that the opposite parties are bound to issue the pathrika to their members in time. Denying vivaha pathrika is the sheer deficiency in their service and the opposite parties are bound to compensate the complainant adequately and it cause much mental agony and hardships to the complainant and her family and due to this attitude of the opposite party, the complainant and his family disgraced in the public. Against this wicked attitude of opposite parties, the complainant approached this Forum for allowing the following reliefs such as to direct the opposite parties to issue vivaha pathrika to the complainant, to direct the 1st opposite party to register the marriage after its solemnization and to direct the opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.25000/- as compensation to the complainant.
(cont.....3)
- 3 -
On notice, 1st opposite party entered appearance and filed detailed version denying all the allegations. In the version, opposite party contended that, as stated in the complaint, opposite party registered under the Companies Act and all its members are the share holders. Being the share holder of the company, all their members are liable to obey its rules and regulations for the smooth functioning of the yogam. Complainant acted against the by-laws of the yogam. 1st opposite party further contended that, as the complainant admitted that, the reason for filing the complaint against the 1st opposite party is only on the basis of the enmity between the complainant’s father and the 2nd opposite party. Further contends that complainant’s father misappropriated an amount of Rs.1,11,713/- belongs to the SNDP Yogam, Kochuthovala unit, while he was the secretary of the branch and he executed an agreement in favour of the SNDP Yogam branch office dated 25.9.2012 for the repayment of the said amount. Thereafter he evaded from the agreement and not paid any amount as agreed. For remitting this amount, 2nd opposite party issued several notices to the complainant’s father, but he neglected all the requests. To evade from paying this amount to the yogam, the complainant filed this petition against the opposite parties with an ill-motive, by concealing the misappropriation and proceedings initiated by the yogam against them.
The opposite parties further contended that SNDP Yogam Sakha Secretary is having no authority to issue vivaha pathrika, as alleged in the complaint. The father of the complainant is well aware of the fact, since he was the secretary of the branch for so many years. As per the by-law, on getting an application for issuing vivaha pathrika, the branch forwarded it to the union office and the union office is the authority to issue pathrika. Here no application is received from the complainant requesting to issue pathrika. It is also well aware to the complainant that there is a specific form for applying pathrika. If the branch secretary is not acted upon the receipt of such an application, the applicant can approach to the union (cont.....4)
- 4 -
authorities and file petition against the branch secretary. Here no application is filed by the complainant for issuing pathirka and he was not approached the union office against the 2nd opposite party. Moreover, the marriage of the complainant was solemnized on the same day that they fixed and no harm or mental agony was caused to the complainant or his family. Hence no deficiency in service was happened from the part of the opposite party as alleged in the complaint.
Complainant and 3 witnesses are examined as PW1 to PW4 and Exts.P1 to P9 marked. Ext.P1 is the copy of receipt dated 7.2.1998. Ext.P2 is the passbook. Ext.P3(series) is receipt dated 7.4.2012. Ext.P4(series) is the receipt dated 29.5.2011. Ext.P5(series) are copy of letter dated 14.1.2013 and copy of show cause notice dated 20.12.2012. Ext.P6 is the copy of marriage certificate dated 7.10.2014. Ext.P7 is bylaw of SNDP Sakha Yogam. Ext.P8 is copy of general body meeting notice and audit report. Ext.P9 is copy of voters list of Kattappana Municipality, Ward No.I. Ext.C1 is the report of court ameen. From the defence side, 2nd opposite party and another witness was examined as DWs1 and 2. Ext.R1 to R5 were marked. Ext.R1 is an agreement dated 23.9.2012 executed by one K.A. Sasidharan, in favour of the SNDP, Kochuthovala branch No.1510. Ext.R2 is the notice copy dated 18.2.2013. Ext.R3 is copy of annual general body meeting notice and audit report. Ext.R4 is application format of Vivaha Pathrika. Ext.R5 is copy of register of SNDP sakha yogam No.1510, pages from 60 to 72.
Heard both sides. The point for consideration is whether there is any deficiency in service from the part of opposite parties and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to ?
The POINT :- The learned counsel for the complainant vehemently argued that on the basis of personal grudge with the father of the complainant, the 2nd opposite party denied the issuance of vivaha pathrika with an ulterior motive to tarnish the image of the complainant and his family, before the general public. Since the vivaha pathrika is mandatory (cont.....5)
- 5 -
and a custom in between SNDP yogam members, denial of issuance of pathrika is against the yogam byelaws and the 2nd opposite party, being the secretary of the SNDP branch yogam, where the complainant and his family is having active membership, is liable to compensate for the hardships that caused to the complainant and his family due to the illegal act of the 2nd opposite party.
At the same time, the learned counsel for the opposite party denied all the allegations leveled by the complainant against them. He pointed out that, one Mr. K.A. Sasidharan, none other than the father of the complainant, served as the secretary in this yogam branch 1510 for a long period till his failure in the general election conducted by the Malanadu SNDP Union of 2012. The learned counsel further pointed out that, while conducting audit of account in the year 2012, the auditor found out that there was a shortage of an amount of Rs.111713/- in the account. An enquiry conducted by the Malanadu SNDP Union president and it is found that, the amount was misappropriated by the secretary. Hence the SNDP yogam issued a notice to the father of the complainant and in reply to that, he executed an agreement in favour of 2nd opposite party yogam for assuring the payment. From the incident onwards, the complainant's family is keeping personal grudge against the 2nd opposite party. This complaint is the outcome of the personal enimity towards the 2nd opposite party. Hence there is no deficiency in service happened in this matter from the part of 2nd opposite party.
We have carefully considered the points of argument and gone through the depositions of witnesses and evidence on record. By perusing Ext.P7, SNDP Yogam Nibandhanagal (Bye-laws or conditions), we can see that clause 16(1) of the Nibandhanagal stats that, hnhm-l-¯n\v h[q-h-c·mÀ tbmK¯n AwKXzw kzo-I-cn¨v tbmK-¯n \n¶pw \ÂIp¶ hnhm-l-]-{XnI AhÀ AwK-§-fm-bp-ff imJ-I-fn-tebv¡v ssIam-tdWvS-Xpw, hnhmlw hc-sâbpw h[phnsâbpw imJ-bn kq£n-¨n-«p-ff cPn-Ì-dn tcJ-s¸-Sp-t¯WvS--XpWvSv. Here it is admitted that, the complainant is a permanent member of SNDP Kochuthovala Branch
(cont.....6)
- 6 -
No.1510. It is seen from the Yogam Nibandhanagal that, the authority of issuing vivaha pathrika is SNDP Yogam, not SNDP branch. By going through Ext.P3, it is very clear that, the elder brother of the complainant remitted an amount of Rs.10925/- towards the SNDP branch for the marriage purpose. The 4th item in this receipt denotes hnhml At]£ Rs.10/-. But no evidence is produced by the complainant to convince the Forum that whether he applied for vivaha pathrika, by paying an amount of Rs.10/-. Eventhough in cross examination the complainant deposed that they applied for pathrika, before one month of the marriage, no evidence is produced to convince the Forum. As admitted that, the complainant's father was the secretary for a long period of this branch, he will be well aware of the proceedings of issuing vivaha pathrika. Here the question arises whether the complainant approached 2nd opposite party for getting vivaha pathrika properly ? If the opposite party denied for issuance of pathrika, what steps was taken by the complainant ? Here no evidence is produced by the complainant to show that he approached the higher Forum against the act of the 2nd opposite party. At this juncture, it is very pertinent to go through the deposition of PW2, none other than the father of the complainant. In chief examination, he deposed that, hnhmlw \S-¯p¶ Imcyw FXnÀI-£n-Isf imJm-tbm-K¯¯nepw union office-epw t\cn«v t]mbn ]d-ª-Xm-Wv. imJm-tbm-K-¯n \n¶mWv hnhm-l-]-{Xn-I-bv¡p-ff At]£ e`n-¡p-¶-Xv. Sn At]£ {]Im-c-amWv ]{XnI In«p-¶Xpw I£n-IÄ¡v ssIam-dp-¶-Xpw. (t]Pv 5) ]{Xn-I-bpsS custodian, union secretary BWv. union secretaryþsb {]Xn-bm-¡n-bn-«n-Ã. imJ-bn {Ia-t¡-Sp-Itfm sk{I-«-dn-bp-ambn A`n-{]m-b-h-y-X-ymkw Ds-WvS¦ntem union secretary-¡v ]cmXn sImSp-¡mw. Rmt\m aIt\m C¡m-cyw ]dªv imJm sk{I-«-dn¡v ]cmXn sImSp-¯n-«n-Ã. From the deposition of DW2 also we can see that no steps is initiated against the 2nd opposite party, for non-issuance of the application form and vivaha pathrika.
In order to properly appreciate the submissions made on behalf of the parties, it is necessary to have a careful look on the documents produced by the 1st opposite party and their deposition. Here by going through Ext.R1, an agreement allegedly executed in favour of the 2nd opposite party (cont.....7)
- 7 -
sakha, one Sasidharan, the father of the complainant, it is very clear that there was a controversy relating to financial matters between the said Sasidharan and the present office bearers of sakha yogam 1510. Eventhough the said Sasidharan denied the execution of Ext.R1 agreement, no effort is taken to convince the Forum that, it is a forged one and it is falsely fabricated by someone. A mere denial is not sufficient without clear and cogent evidence. From this document alone it is obvious that, the father of the complainant is liable to pay some amount to the 2nd opposite party SNDP branch.
In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that, the complainant is miserably failed to prove the non-issuance of the vivaha pathrika by the 2nd opposite party and related allegations with clear and cogent evidence. At the same time, from the deposition of witnesses, the Forum found that, the marriage of the complainant was already solemnised and now the complainant is not in need of a vivaha pathrika. Hence the Forum directs the opposite parties to register the marriage of the complainant in the register of Kochuthovala SNDP yogam branch No.1510 to ensure the harmoney between the yogam members, if the complainant approaches the opposite party. No order to cost and compensation.
Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 30th day of May, 2018
Sd/-
SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR, PRESIDENT
Sd/-
SRI. BENNY. K., MEMBER
(cont.....8)
- 8 -
APPENDIX
Depositions :
On the side of the Complainant :
PW1 - Santhosh Sasidharan.
PW2 - K.A. Sasidharan.
PW3 - Sajomon George.
PW4 - Thomas Mathew.
On the side of the Opposite Party :
DW1 - Mohanan E.T.
DW2 - K.N. Raju.
DW3 - Vinod Uthaman.
Exhibits :
On the side of the Complainant :
Ext.P1 - copy of receipt dated 7.2.1998.
Ext.P2 - passbook.
Ext.P3(series)- receipt dated 7.4.2012.
Ext.P4(series) - the receipt dated 29.5.2011.
Ext.P5(series) - copy of letter dated 14.1.2013 and copy of show cause
notice dated 20.12.2012.
Ext.P6 - copy of marriage certificate dated 7.10.2014.
Ext.P7 - bylaw of SNDP Sakha Yogam.
Ext.P8 - copy of general body meeting notice and audit report.
Ext.P9 - copy of voters list of Kattappana Municipality, Ward No.I.
Ext.C1 - Commission report.
On the side of the Opposite Party :
Ext.R1 - agreement dated 23.9.2012 executed by one K.A. Sasidharan,
in favour of the SNDP, Kochuthovala branch No.1510.
Ext.R2 - notice copy dated 18.2.2013.
Ext.R3 - copy of annual general body meeting notice and audit report.
Ext.R4 - application format of Vivaha Pathrika.
Ext.R5 - copy of register of SNDP sakha yogam No.1510, pages from 60 to 72.
Forwarded by Order,
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
