Complainant : Suseela, Retd. Teacher, W/o.Dharmapalan, Kadavil
House, P.O.Kanjani, Thrissur.
(By Advs.T.G.Krishnan & M.T.Thampi, Thrissur)
Respondent : Thrissur District Human Resources Development Co.Op.
Society Ltd., Reg.No.1197 rep. by Honorary Secretary,
Puthenpurakkal Bldg., 2nd floor, Poothole Road,
Thrissur.
(By Adv.K.S.Ravisankar, Thrissur)
ORDER
By Sri.M.S.Sasidharan, Member
The complaint is filed to get the amount deposited with the respondent society. The case in brief is that the complainant had deposited Rs.47,500/- on 9/7/2007 vide Fixed Deposit Receipt No.060. The respondents are liable to return the deposited amount Rs.47,500/- with 7% interest on 17/10/2007. The complainant had joined in the MDS No.4 vide ticket NO.29. The complainant had remitted the instalments upto May 2008. Since the respondents have not returned the deposited amount the complainant defaulted the further instalments in the MDS. The complainant has requested to refund the deposit amount after deducting the dues in the MDS. But there was no remedy. Hence the complaint filed.
2. The respondents denied all the allegations in the version filed by them. They have stated there in that the complainant’s husbnd K.K.Dharmapalan was the president and his brother Gunapalan was the honorary secretary of the respondent society. Smt.Preetha.A.V., W/o.Gunapalan and one of her relatives P.C.Ravindran were the directors of the society. They became the members of the society against the direction that more than one member of a family is not eligible to become members in a society. Out of the nine directors of the respondent society five are close relatives. All the transactions in the respondent society was held by the complainant’s husband and the honorary secretary. They had misappropriated the money and as a result of this they are liable to pay above Rs.23,00,000/- to the society. The president had made the complainant joined in the MDS and recieved the MDS amount. Out of this amount a small amount was deposited in the society. The depositors are only entitled to get the amount after the maturity of the MDS. The complainant had defaulted the MDS and hence the deposited amount cannot be refunded to her. Hence no deficiency in service is committed by the respondents. So dismiss the complaint.
3. Points for consideration are :
1) Is the complainant entitled to get back the Exhibit P1 amount ?
2) Is there any deficiency in service committed by the respondents in this case?
3) If so reliefs and costs ?
4. Evidence adduced are Exhibits P1 and P2, Exhibits R1 and R2 and the oral testimony of PW1.
5. The complaint is filed to get back the Exhibit P1 amount. The complainant has stated that she had joined in the MDS conducted by the respondent society and she had defaulted the instalments. So the complainant requests to refund the deposited amount after deducting the dues on the monthly deposits. On the other side the respondents have stated that the society was administered by the president who is the complainant’s husband and his brother, the honorary secretary. They had misappropriated huge amounts and received the MDS amount in respect of the complainants. Since the complainant had defaulted the MDS she is entitled to get the deposited amount only after the maturity of the MDS.
6. Exhibit P1 is the FD receipt and Exhibit P2 is the request made by the complainant to the Asst. Registrar of Co-operatives. Wherein she had requested to adjust the deposit amount to her dues in the MDS. Exhibit R1 is the copy of the Fixed Deposit Ledger. Wherein it is written that the disputed fixed deposit is renewed for two years with effect from 17/10/07. However no renewal has been recorded in the Exhibit P1 receipt. At the same time it is recorded in the Exhibit R2 that the deposited amount has been disbursed on 9/7/07 as payment adjusted. But the details of adjustment has not been stated anywhere. The respondents have not stated even in their counter the amount due from the complainant and the amount deducted from the disputed fixed deposit towards the dues. Another contention of the respondent is that the complainant’s husband had misappropriated the society amount and enquiry has been conducted as per Section 65 and the misappropriation has been revealed. But no evidence is produced to substantiate the allegation. PW1 has denied when cross examining her that
The respondents have failed to prove the alleged misappropriation and no evidence or details have been produced to reveal the amount due from the complainant or the amount adjusted from the deposit. Hence the complainant is entitled to get back the deposited amount.
7. In the result the complaint is allowed. The respondents are directed to pay the complainant Exhibit P1 amount with 7% interest from 9/7/2007 till realization along with cost Rs.1,000/- within two months from the date of receipt of copy of the order.
Dictated to the Confdl. Asst., transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum this the 26th day of April 2012.
Sd/- M.S.Sasidharan, Member
Sd/-
Padmini Sudheesh, President
Sd/-
Rajani.P.S., Member
Appendix
Complainant’s Exhibits
Ext. P1 FD receipt original
Ext. P2 Copy of lr. dtd. 12/6/08
Complainant’s witness
PW1 - V.K.Suseela
Respondent’s Exhibits
Ext. R1 Copy of FD ledger
Ext. R2 Copy of day book
Id/-
Member
