O R D E R
Smt. Sheela Jacob (Member):
The complainant has filed the complaint against the opposite parties for getting a relief from the Forum.
2. The grievance of the complainant in brief is as follows: The complainant was a non-teaching staff working at St. Mary’s H.S. Anicad and now working at St. Thomas H.S.S Eruvallipra, Thiruvalla. The 1st and 4th opposite parties are Directors and 2nd and 3rd opposite parties are Executive Directors of the opposite party’s firm. The opposite parties had various deposit schemes such as chitty fund, loan scheme, F.D, Doubling non-cumulative scheme, Sastha Samurthi, Sourakshika etc. The opposite parties approached the complainant and explained about this scheme and compelled the complainant to join the scheme. They assured that if he pays Rs.1,000/- each per month for 3 years the complainant would get Rs.40,000/- at the time of maturity. The complainant believed the assurance and joined the scheme on 26.09.2011. Its maturity date was September 2014. He paid Rs.1,000/- per month for 3 years. The complainant paid Rs.36,000/- in 36 monthly instalments. The complainant approached the opposite parties for getting back the maturity amount of Rs.40,000/-. But the opposite parties did not returned the amount so far in spite of the opposite parties assurance to pay the same. The non-payment of the amount caused financial loss and mental agony to the complainant and the opposite parties are liable to the complainant for the same. The above said act of the opposite parties is a clear deficiency in service. Hence this complaint for the realization of Rs.40,000/- as per the maturity amount along with compensation of Rs.60,000/- for the mental agony, financial loss etc.
3. This Forum entertained the complaint and issued notice to opposite parties for appearance. All the opposite parties are not appeared hence this Forum set exparte against the opposite parties on 18.01.2017.
4. On the basis of the pleadings of the complainant, the Points to be considered are:
(1) Whether the complaint can be allowable?
(2) Regarding relief and cost?
5. The evidence of this complaint consists of the proof affidavit filed by the power of attorney holder on behalf of the complainant and Exts.A1 to A4. After closure of evidence, complainant was heard.
6. Point No.s 1 & 2:- For the sake of convenience, we would like to consider Point No.1 and 2 together. The complainant’s case is that the amount deposited by the complainant with the opposite parties as under the ‘Sourakshika’ deposit scheme is not refunded so far. The opposite parties are liable to pay the said amount of Rs.40,000/- to the complainant.
7. In order to prove the case of the complainant, the complainant’s Power of attorney holder Sri. Antony Abraham filed a proof affidavit in lieu of his chief examination along with 4 documents. On the basis of the proof affidavit, he was examined as PW1 and the documents produced are marked as Exts.A1 to A4. Ext.A1 is the copy of the power of attorney executed by the complainant. Ext.A2 is the copy of the FIR dated 02.02.2015. Ext.A3 series (13 numbers) are the photocopies of the pay in slips issued by the opposite parties. Ext.A4 is the copy of the receipt dated 26.09.2014 issued by the opposite parties showing the remittance of 35 & 36th instalments.
8. On the basis of the evidence adduced by the complainant, it is seen that the complainant had paid a total amount of Rs.36,000/- to the opposite parties and it is evident from Ext.A4 receipt and Ext.A3 series pay in slips. Since the opposite parties are exparte, we find no reason to disbelieve the allegations of the complainant. Hence the complainant’s case stands proved as unchallenged. Therefore, we find that the opposite parties are liable to the complainant in this transaction and the non-payment of the amounts due to the complainant by the opposite parties is a clear deficiency in service. The complainant has stated his complaint that he had undergone several mental agony and financial loss. Hence this complaint is allowable.
9. In the result, this complaint is allowed, thereby the opposite parties are directed to return the maturity amount of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand only) (as per the ‘Sourakshika’ Deposit Scheme as per Ext.A3 series pay in slips and Ext.A4 receipt) with 12% interest per annum from the date of filing of this complaint along with Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) as compensation and cost to the complainant within 30 days of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the complainant is allowed to realize the whole amount ordered herein above with 12% interest per annum from today till the realization of the whole amount.
Declared in the Open Forum on this the 28th day of April, 2017.
(Sd/-)
Sheela Jacob,
(Member)
Sri. P. Satheesh Chandran Nair (President) : (Sd/-)
Appendix:
Witness examined on the side of the complainant:
PW1 : Antony Abraham
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:
A1 : Copy of the power of attorney executed by the complainant.
A2 : Copy of the FIR dated 02.02.2015.
A3 series (13 numbers) : Photocopies of the pay in slips issued by the
opposite parties.
A4 : Receipt dated 26.09.2014 issued by the opposite parties.
Witness examined on the side of the complainant: Nil.
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant: Nil.
(By Order)
Copy to:- (1) Babykutty. P.K., Parumannil House, Puramattom.P.O.,
Pathanamthitta Dist.
(2) Vrinda Rajesh, Kulangara House,
Thirunakkara. P.O., Kottayam – 686 001.
- Rajeev. K.N, Kulangara House, Thirunakkara.P.O.,
Kottayam – 686 001.
- Sandhya K.V, Kunnathuparambu,
Chakkaraparampu, Thammanam. P.O.,
Kochi – 682 032.
- George Vazhappally Thomas, Vazhappally House,
Vasantha Nagar, Elthuruth. P.O.,
Trissur – 680 611.
- The stock File.
