By Smt. Rajani.P.S, Member:
The complainant’s case is as follows: The complainant was the subscriber of the MDS of respondent and he paid for the said kuri till January 2009. The complainant had deposited Rs.50,000/- with 7.5% interest for 6 months vide FDR No.35 on 10.11.06 and it was matured on 10.5.07. He demanded the deposited after the maturity period. But the respondent sought time for payment. Subsequently the director board was dissolved and administrator had taken the charge of respondent firm. After that also no payment was made. So the act of the respondent shows deficiency in service. Hence the complaint.
2. The counter filed by the respondent is that the complainant is a member of the respondent society. So the complaint is not maintainable before the Forum as per Section 100 of Co-operative Societies Act. The President K.K. Dharmapalan and brother Gunapalan, the Honorary Secretary were brothers of his wife Preetha and she was one of the director of the respondent firm and another director Reveendran was also a relative of his wife. So the 5 among the directors of the respondent firm were relatives and it is against the Co-operative Society rules. The then president and honorary secretary were handling all activities of the respondent firm. The complainant is also an employee of the respondent firm. The complainant and the president together done the financial dealings of the respondent firm. So these all together had done malpractices and due to their misuse the respondent firm is to get Rs.23 lakhs from the above said directors. The complainant had made an entry of Rs.50,000/- fixed deposit in the day book on 10.11.06 in the name of himself and the same day it was recorded as suspense liability in the debit. The complainant never deposited any amount as alleged and the FD receipt is a fake document prepared by him and his relatives. The said amount is not seen deposited in the District Co-operative Bank. The new director board had conducted an enquiry regarding the malpractices of the said former directors as per Section 65 of their fault was detected. The complainant had also a role in the financial dealings of the respondent firm. There is enquiry going on in the name of the complainant and his relatives. So the present complaint was filed in order to escape from the actions of higher authorities. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondents. Hence he is not entitled for compensation and cost. The respondent is entitled for compensation due to the activities of the complainant. Hence dismiss with costs.
3. The points for consideration are:
(1) Was there any deficiency in service on the part of the respondent?
(2) If so, reliefs and costs.
4. The evidence consists of Exts. P1 and P2, Exts. R1 to R3 and the oral testimony of PW1.
5. Points: The complainant was a subscriber of the MDS in the respondent firm and he paid it till January 2009. He had deposited Rs.50,000/- with 7.5% interest on 10.11.06 and it was matured on 10.5.07. He demanded the deposited amount. But not returned so far.
6. The respondent in their counter stated that the complainant was an employee of the respondent firm and the former director board members were his relatives and the complainant together with these persons made a fake document like Ext. P1. He never deposited any amount in the respondent firm. The complainant had filed the present complaint in order to escape from the actions going to be taken by the higher authorities.
7. As per Ext. P1 FD receipt the complainant is entitled to get Rs.50,000/- with 7.5% interest on 10.5.07. The respondent’s main allegation was that the complainant together with other directors prepared fake documents and criminal action is proceeding against them. The respondent produced Exts. R1 to R3 documents. But none of these documents did not prove the allegation made by the respondent. PW1 admitted that he was an employee of the respondent firm and his role is to purchase things for the Neethi Medical Store. He also deposed that he had given security towards the auctioned MDS and there are dues in it. But there is no allegation raised by the respondent regarding the default made by him in MDS or no contention that the FD amount is retained due to the same. As per Ext. R2 fixed deposit ledger Rs.50,000/- was renewed on 11.5.07 and continuous renewal upto 19.9.09. In these circumstances the complainant is entitled for the return of the deposited amount.
8. In the result the complaint is allowed and the respondent is directed to return Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with 7.5% interest per annum from 10.11.06 till realization and Rs.750/- (Rupees seven hundred and fifty only) as costs to the complainant 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 30th day of April 2012.
