By Smt. Padmini Sudheesh, President:
The case of complainant is that on 10.8.07 the complainant had deposited Rs.60,000/- with the respondent and the due date was on 9.8.09. Likewise on 30.3.05 the complainant had deposited Rs.50,000/- with the respondent and the due date was on 31.3.08. The complainant also had deposited Rs.34,000/- on 6.12.07 and the due date was on 6.12.09. But the amounts were not returned to complainant. There were also monthly deposit scheme in the name of complainant and the complainant had committed default in payment of amounts because of the malfunctioning of the respondent society. The complainant demanded the amount due to her but was not returned. Hence the complaint.
2. The counter averments are that the complainant was the member and director of the respondent society. So the complaint is not maintainable before the Forum. The father of complainant was the president of the society and the brother of her father was honorary secretary and his wife was a director and the director Ravindran was the relative of the director A.V. Preetha. The five directors out of nine directors were the relatives. There was misappropriation of money of the society by the directors. The father of complainant Dharmapalan started the MDS kuri transaction in the name of complainant and misappropriated the MDS amount. Out of this amount some of the amount has deposited with the respondent. The complainant committed default in payment of MDS amount. So she is not entitled to get the deposited amount. There was enquiry conducted as per Section 65 of the Act and found out misappropriation of money in the name of complainant and the relatives. This complaint is filed to escape from the proceedings of the Co-operative Department and Vigilance Department. Hence dismiss.
3. The points for consideration are that:
(1) Whether the complainant is entitled to get the amounts sought?
(2) Other reliefs and costs.
4. The evidence consists of Ext. P1 series, Ext. P2 and Ext. R1.
5. Points: Ext. P1 series are the deposit receipts produced by complainant. As stated in the complaint the complainant had deposited Rs.1,44,000/- with the respondent society in total. It is the case that these amounts along with interest are not returned to her and she is entitled to get these amounts with interest.
6. In the counter the respondent put forward serious allegations but failed to prove any of the allegations. It is the case that there are default in MDS of complainant and the default was corrected by adjusting the amount from Ext. P1 series. As per Ext. P2 the complainant also requested to adjust the due amount from Ext. P1 series amounts. There is no evidence to show that any action has been taken by the authorities. Even if the complainant also admitted that the amount is due there is no evidence at all to show the quantum of amount due. Since the allegations of respondent remained disproved the complainant is entitled to get back Ext. P1 series amount. The respondent is also entitled to reduce the MDS amount due.
7. In the result the complaint is allowed and the respondent is directed to return Ext. P1 series amounts with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of deposit till realization with costs Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only) within two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum this the 24th day of August 2012.
