Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

A/582/2022

the manager & anr - Complainant(s)

Versus

V.Kolanthan - Opp.Party(s)

P.Jagadeesan

30 Mar 2023

ORDER

IN THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI.

 

Present:   Hon’ble THIRU JUSTICE R. SUBBIAH  : PRESIDENT

                 THIRU R  VENKATESAPERUMAL           :    MEMBER

 

F.A. No. 582 of 2022

(Against the order passed in C.C. No.5 of 2020 dated 27.10.2022 on the file of the D.C.D.R.C., Namakkal.

 

Thursday, the 30^th day of March 2023

 

1.  The Manager

     Salem District Central

          Co-operative Bank

     Namakkal Main Branch

     Kander School Street

     Mohanoor Salai

     Namakkal.

 

2 The General Manager

     Salem District Central

          Co-operative Bank

    Cherry Road

    Salem – 1.                                             .. Appellants/

Opposite Parties

 

 

- Vs –

 

V. Kolanthan

S/o. Vangili Gounder

Vettampadi Post

Namakkal.                                                   .. Respondent/  

   Complainant

   

  Counsel for Appellants /

Opposite parties                 :  M/s.P. Jagadeesan 

  Counsel for the Respondent/Complainant   :   M/s.Mayilnathan                                                                   

 

                The Respondent as complainant had filed a complaint before the District Commission against the opposite parties praying for certain directions. The District Commission had passed an ex-parte order, allowing the complaint. Against the said exparte order, this appeal is preferred by the opposite parties praying to set aside the order of the District Commission dt. 27.10.2022 in CC. No.5 of 2020.

 

        This petition came before us for hearing finally, today.  Upon hearing the arguments of the counsel appearing on both sides, perusing the documents, lower court records and the order passed by the District Commission, this Commission made the following order in the open court.

 

JUSTICE R. SUBBIAH ,  PRESIDENT  (Open court)

 

        1.  The opposite parties 1 & 2 before the District Commission are the appellants herein.

 

        2. The case of the complainant before the District Commission is that he was holding a Savings Bank Account No.111230100026427 in Salem District Central Cooperative Bank, Main Branch, Namakkal.  As on 31.03.2018, a sum of Rs.9,06,814/- was available in the said savings account of the complainant.  On 10.04.2018, when the complainant went to the bank to withdraw money, the Bank authorities did not allow the complainant to withdraw the cash available in his account, stating that there is a prohibitory order, restraining the complainant from withdrawing cash.  But, no prohibitory order was produced.  No one is having a right to stop him from withdrawing the amount, without the order of the Court.  Therefore, alleging deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant has filed the complaint seeking to release the amount of Rs.9,61,556/- in his Savings Bank Account, withheld by the opposite parties, along with interest @ 18% and to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- to the credit of Consumer Welfare Fund and a sum of Rs.25,000/- as compensation towards mental agony along with Rs.5000/- as cost of the complaint. 

        3.     Though notice was served, the Appellants/ opposite parties, did not appear before the District Commission, on the date of hearing and hence the opposite parties were set ex-parte on 04.11.2019 and the 1^st opposite party was set ex-parte on 07.06.2022.   Consequently, an ex-parte order was passed in favour of the respondent/complainant by holding that there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties and thus directed the opposite parties jointly and severally, to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards the loss incurred by the complainant, to the consumer welfare fund and the 1^st opposite party is directed to release the amount of Rs.9,06,814/- which was withheld from the Complainant’s Savings Bank Account along with interest @ 18% and to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- as compensation towards mental agony, along with Rs.5000/- as cost of the complaint.    Aggrieved over the said order, this appeal is preferred by the opposite parties, praying to set aside the order and for a chance to contest the case on merit. 

 

        4. When the matter was taken up for consideration by this commission, counsel for the appellant/opposite parties submitted that the respondent/ complainant had filed a complaint by suppressing the real facts.  When the complainant was working as a Secretary of Vettampadi Primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Society, surcharge proceedings were initiated against him and 11 others, due to financial loss made by them to the tune of Rs.36,38,164/-.  Final order in the surcharge proceedings was passed by the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Namakkal Circle on 22.04.2011 holding that the complainant and 3 others are liable for the financial loss and they are liable to pay a sum of Rs.33,00,518/- with interest @ 12% p.a.  The complainant has preferred an appeal in CMA (CS) No.9 of 2012 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Namakkal.  The appeal was dismissed on the ground of limitation under Section 152(3) of Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act, 1983.  Pursuant to the order of dismissal of the appeal, the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Namakkal in his proceedings in E.P. No.1/2014/SF dated 05.01.2017 issued prohibitory order and thereby prohibited and restrained the 1^st appellant/Bank from making any transfer or refund of deposit or any kind of cash payment from the Savings Bank Account of the complainant.  Due to the said reason, the 1^st Appellant Bank was not able to release the amount to the complainant.  In fact, the appellants 1 & 2, entered appearance before the District Commission, through the Government Pleader, by filing Memo of Appearance.  Time was granted to file written version by 16.04.2020.  In the meantime, COVID lockdown was imposed by the Government and the period of limitation was also suspended by Hon’ble Supreme Court from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022.  Furthermore, there was no quorum for the District Commission, from 27.08.2021 to 18.03.2022.  The case was adjourned till 18.03.2022.  Thereafter, the Government Pleader who appeared for the appellants previously resigned and a new Government Pleader was appointed.  He undertook to file memo of appearance on 29.04.2022 and the District Commission granted time till 03.06.2022 for filing vakalat and written version.  Vakalat was filed on 03.06.2022 and the case was adjourned to 07.06.2022 for filing written version.  On the said date, written version could not be filed by the appellants and hence the appellants were called absent and set ex-parte, then the case was posted on 29.06.2022.  On 29.06.2022, the appellants filed the written version along with documents and a petition under Order IX Rule 7 CPC praying to set aside the ex-parte order.  On 12.08.2022, the petition filed under Order IX Rule 7 was returned and the case was posted on 12.09.2022.  Finally, after hearing the arguments of the complainant an ex-parte order was passed on 27.10.2022.  Thus, counsel for the appellants submitted that they were following the case right from the beginning diligently.   Moreover, they have a valid case and if the ex-parte order is not set aside, they would be put to irreparable loss. 

 

        5.  Be that as it may, irrespective of the reasons assigned by the counsel for the appellants/ opposite parties, we are of the opinion, in the interest of justice, the ex-parte order could be set aside so that the appellants/ opposite parties would have a chance of contesting the case on merits. 

        6. When the case had come up before this Commission on 17.03.2023, after hearing the submission of the counsel for the appellants/opposite parties, this Commission had felt that there is some force in the arguments of the counsel for the appellants/opposite parties and therefore in order to give a chance to the opposite parties to agitate their right on merits, was inclined to allow this appeal by remanding the matter to the District Commission, to dispose of the case on merit.   However, considering the lethargic attitude of the opposite parties, in not appearing before the District Commission, we imposed a cost of Rs.3000/- to be paid to the Legal Aid Account of the State Commission on or before 29.03.2023. Today, when the matter appeared in the list it was reported that the condition imposed by this Commission has been complied with.    Hence, this appeal is allowed today by remanding back the complaint to the District Commission for fresh disposal according to law. 

 

        7. In the result, the appeal is allowed by setting aside the order of the District Commission, Namakkal, in C.C.No.5/2020 dt.27.10.2022, and the matter is remanded back to the District Commission, Namakkal, for fresh disposal according to law and on merits.

        Parties are directed to appear before the District Commission, Namakkal on 28.04.2023, for taking further instructions. On which date itself, the opposite parties shall file their vakalat, written version, proof affidavit and documents if any. The District Commission is directed to dispose of the complaint, within three months from the date of appearance, according to law and on merits.  

        The amount deposited by the appellants, shall remain in the custody of this commission, till the disposal of the original complaint.

 

 

 

   R  VENKATESAPERUMAL                                 R. SUBBIAH

                 MEMBER                                            PRESIDENT

 

 

 

Index :  Yes/ No

 

AVR/SCDRC/Chennai/Orders/March/2023