Mrs. Margaret Martinha Furtado
Alias Margaret Martinha de Souza,
r/o House No.436/3, Almeida Vaddo,
Parra, Bardez – Goa. …………………….Complainant

V

Corporation Bank,
(A Govt. of India Enterprises)
through its Branch Manager,
HolyNagoaTrinityChurch Compound,
P.O. Arpora, Bardez Taluka, Goa. .......………...…..Opposite Party


Date: - 09/04/09



O R D E R


(Per Smt. Shanti Maria Fonseca, Sr. Member)

Brief Facts of the Case:-

1.According to the Complainant her husband Antonio Alexandre Furtado was having term deposit receipt for an amount of Rs.49,000/- (Rupees Forty Nine Thousand Only) with the Opposite Party. The said receipt was to mature for an amount of Rs.52,135/- (Rupees fifty two thousand one hundred and thirty five only) on 13.01.07. A copy of the said Fixed Deposit No.713142 has been exhibited before us. It is her case that her husband expired on 18.08.06 and that she and her son are the only legal heirs to succeed all his assets.

2.The Complainant has argued before us that there is no provision under law which entitles the nominee to hold the property to the exclusion of the legal representative. It is their case that the Banking Regulation Act only provides for the manner in which a bank has to conduct its affairs in respect of a deposit held by it on the death of the depositor. It is the case of the Complainant that by not allowing her to withdraw the amount under the Fixed Deposit, the Opposite Party has committed deficiency in service.

3.The Opposite Party has stated before us that they are unable to release the said amount to the Complainant as there is a nominee by name Mrs. Doris D’Souza on the account opening form of the deceased Antonio Alexandre Furtado. It is their case that they have requested the Complainant to contact the said nominee and settle the said matter. Letter dated 17.11.06 addressed to the nominee Mrs. Doris D’Souza by he Opposite Party has been placed before us. There has been no response to the same by her.

OBSERVATIONS

1.Despite receiving letter dated 17.11.06 the nominee Mrs. Doris D’Souza has not responded to the Bank.

2.It would have been good if the nominee Mrs. Doris D’Souza who is a relation of the depositor was brought before this Forum and the matter amicably settled. However in the absence of the said nominee being made a party and brought before us, we shall strictly go by the provisions of law with regard to the rights of a nominee in the event of the death of the actual account holder. Going through the judgement of Justice Rebello reported in Mh. L.J. 2000 at page 632 it is clear that the legal representatives of the deceased are entitled to the realisation amounts of the concerned Fixed Deposit.

3.On perusal of all documents and evidence that has been placed before us it is our opinion that there has been deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Partywho has failed to release the Fixed Deposit amount of her late husband that had matured with them in the bank. This delay cannot be condoned as the Complainant had expressed time and again to the Opposite Party that the said money was to pay back outstanding debts. An indemnity bond dated 17/1/06 has also been executed by the Complainant in favour of the Opposite Party and hence we pass the following;

ORDER

1.Opposite Party is directed to pay to the Complainant the sum of Rs.52,135/- (Rupees fifty two thousand one hundred and thirty five only) with interest payable @ 12% from the date of maturity till the date of payment.

2.Cost of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) granted to the Complainant towards mental tension, harassment and the legal cost of filing this suit.

3.Order to be complied within 15 days of receiving this order.

Huchappa,

S/o Channarayappa,

A/a 56 yrs,

Assistant Master,

(Ex.Head Master)

Higher Primary School,

Gunjur, Tubagere Hobli,

Doddaballapura Taluk,

Bangalore Rural District.



…. Complainant.

V/s



The Manager,

Corporation Bank,

Doddaballapura Branch,

Doddaballapura,

Bangalore Rural District.

…. Opposite Party

ORDER REGARDING MAINTAINABILITY

This complaint is filed seeking direction to the Opposite Party to pay Rs.15,550/- to the complainant with interest at 24% Per Annum.

2. The complainant claims that he was working as a Head Master at Gunjur Government School in Doddaballapur Taluk and during the year 2007-08, he spent Rs.15,550/- for the purchase of stationery food items, vegetables, etc., out of his pocket for the purpose of the said school and after spending the amount, he used to get the amount from the government through the Opposite Party Bank.

The Government also released the amount through Opposite Party Bank, but the Opposite Party Bank failed to pay that amount to the complainant and instead the amount is paid to Srinivas – the Head Master of the said School. It is also stated that on 02/04/2008 and 22/07/2008 he addressed letters to the Opposite Party requesting not to release the amount in favour of Srinivas and pay the said amount to him, but the Opposite Party never acted upon his request. With the above allegations, the complaint is filed for a direction to the Opposite Party to pay Rs.15,550/- to the complainant.

3. Having regard to the allegations in the complaint, the case was posted for hearing regarding maintainability right from 15/05/2009 till 02/06/2009. But the complainant remained absent throughout.

4. From the copy of the statement of account produced along with the complaint, it is seen that the account with the Opposite Party is not in the name of the complainant. It is mentioned in this statement of account that the account is in the name of M/s SDMC (School Development Monitoring Committee), GPHS, Gunjur. As admitted by the complainant Mr.Srinivas is the H.M. of the said School and the Bank has paid the amount to the said H.M. Since the Bank account is not in the name of the complainant himself, it is not a case where the Bank has made payment of the amount available in the account of the complainant to a third party.

If the Bank account is in the name of the School or some committee connected with the School, Bank has to act upon the instructions as to the person entitled to operate the account. If the H.M. of the school is authorized to operate the account, the bank cannot deny the payment of the amount in the account to the H.M. Therefore, the dispute between the complainant on the one hand and the present H.M. and the Opposite Party Bank on the other is with regard to operation of the Bank Account.

In that case the dispute raised by the complainant cannot be construed as a Consumer dispute. If at all the complainant has spent Rs.15,550/- from his pocket for purchasing certain articles for the use of the school, he has to move the concerned authorities to recover that amount. The dispute raised in the complaint is for recovery of the amount and as such it cannot be said to be a Consumer Dispute. From the allegations in the complaint also it is clear that the complainant has not availed the services of the Opposite Party Bank for consideration. In these circumstances, the dispute raised by the complainant cannot be said to be a Consumer Dispute. The proper remedy available to the complainant is by way of a civil suit before the Competent Civil Court and not before the Consumer Forum. In the result, we pass the following:-

-:ORDER:-

1. The complaint is dismissed as not maintainable with liberty to complainant to approach Competent Civil Court if so advised.

COMPLAINANT:-
Manjunatha M G ,
Aged,
R/o # 2517, M C C A Block,
8th Main, Near Bakkeshwara High School,
DAVANAGERE.



V/s

OPPONENT:

Manager,
Corporation Bank,
Sarathi Branch, Harihara Taluk,
Davanagere District.




: JUDGMENT :



The complainant M. G. Manjunatha has filed this complaint against the opponent Manager, Corporation Bank, Sarathi, Harihara Taluk U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act to declare that, the Opponent caused deficiency in service without sanction loan and to direct the opponent to sanction and to pay the crop loan of Rs.27,000/- as prayed for by the complainant and Rs.5,000/- for deficiency in service and mental agony and Rs.15,000/- by way of compensation towards expenses incurred as general damages and other expenses.



2. The facts of the case in brief are as follows :-

The complainant Manjunatha is the customer of the opponent Bank Sarathi. The complainant approached the opponent-Bank and applied for crop loan of Rs.27,000/- by producing the original documents in respect of Survey No.57-1B/2 measuring 1Acre 21 Guntas such as original RTC, Encumbrance Certificate, Mutation Register Extract, i.e. record of rights. The opponent verified the documents produced by the complainant and informed the complainant or assured the complainant that, the crop loan will be given to the complainant by taking the said documents as security. On 26-8-08 the opponent Bank has obtained all the documents in respect of immovable property and obtained the registered mortgage deed by creating equitable mortgage in favor of their bank.

After obtaining such original and registered documents, the opponent Bank has failed to sanction the said crop loan of Rs.27,000/- by hearing the words of other persons, who are in enemical terms with the complainant in order to bring down the reputation of the complainant. The opponent Bank at the instance of the persons who are not in good terms with the complainant has not sanction the crop loan and cancelled the said registered security document executed by the complainant in favor of the bank and in this way caused mental agony and turmoil and intentionally not sanction the loan. If the said loan is sanctioned to the complainant, it would be helpful for the complainant to develop his land and grow more crop by the complainant in his land.

In this way the opponent caused deficiency in service. On account of the said reason, the complainant could not ab le to raise the crops in his land by sowing the crop at appropriate time and on account of the said reason the complainant sustained heavy financial loss. The complainant got issued legal notice to the opponent. The opponent replied the said notice on 21-1-09 with some untenable contentions, under the above said facts and circumstance of the case, the complainant has filed this complaint for the above said releifs.



3. In pursuance of statutory notice issued by this Forum, the opponent entered appearance through its advocate and filed its version contending that,

The opponent has admitted that, the complainant is the customer of their bank. The opponent has admitted that, in the month of August-08, the complainant approached the opponent Bank and requested the opponent for sanctioning of crop loan of Rs.27,000/- by taking the security of RTC, Encumbrance Certificate in respect of Survey No.57-1B/2 measuirng 1Acre 21 Guntas. The opponent after verifying the documents produced by the complainant agreed to sanction the crop loan of Rs.27,000/- to the complainant by taking the said documents as security and asked the complainant to execute mortgage deed i..e by creating equitable mortgage in respect of the said property.


It is also not in dispute that, the opponent has also admitted that, the complainant has executed mortgage deed in favor of the opponent Bank as security for sanctioning of the said crop loan. The opponent has admitted that, the opponent Bank has refused to sanction the crop loan to the complainant and immediately requested the Sub-Registrar to cancel the said mortgage deed executed by the complainant in favor of their Bank accordingly the said mortgage deed executed by the complainant in favor of the opponent Bank was cancelled and informed the complainant accordingly.



4. The opponent has denied that, the opponent Bank on hearing the words of the persons who are in enemical terms with the complainant refused to sanction the said loan. Further, the opponent has denied that, the opponent intentionally not sanction the said loan at the instance of the persons who are in enemical terms with the complainant, and caused loss to the complainant. The opponent has contended that, there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opponent. Accordingly the opponent has contended that, on 25-9-08 one Hanumanthappa S/o Siddappa approached the opponent Bank and raised objection in writing and not to sanction any crop loan.


The complainant on the ground that, the said objector Hanumanthappa is in possession and enjoyment of the said proper. According to the opponent that, in the interst of the opponent Bank, the Manager of the Bank refused to sanction of the said loan and informed Sub-Registrar to cancel the said registration of mortgage deed. The Bank has filed the application to the Sub-Registrar for cancellation of the same and was cancelled. The complainant un-necessarily in order to give trouble to the complainant has not sustained the loan. Further, the opponent is not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant. Hence, the complaint should be dismissed.



5. The complainant has filed his affidavit evidence and produced some documents in support of the case of the complainant. The Manager of the opponent Bank has filed his affidavit evidence and has also produced some documents.



6. We have heard the arguments.



7. Now, the points that arise for consideration of this Forum are as follows:-



i). Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of

the opponent?

ii) If so, whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as sought?

iii) What Order?

8. Our findings on the above points are as follows:-

i) Point No.1: Negative

ii) Point No.2: As not entitled.

iii) Point No.3: See, as per order below:

for the following:-
REASONS
Points 1 and 2 :-

9. The Complainant has filed this complaint to declare that, non sanctioning of the loan by the opponent is nothing but deficiency of service on the part of the opponent. Further, to direct the opponent to sanction the crop loan of Rs.27,000/- to the complainant. Further, the complainant has prayed this forum to direct the opponent to pay the compensation of Rs.5000/- and Rs15000/- for deficiency of service, mental agony and traveling expenses made to file this complaint.



It is un disputed fact that, the complainant approached the opponent Bank and requested the Manager of the Bank for sanctioning of crop loan of Rs.27000/- by taking his properties as securities. The complainant has produced the RTC and record of rights in respect of Survey No.57-1B/2 measuring 1 Acre 21 Guntas.


The complainant has produced the encumbrance Certificate, mutation register extract. It is not in dispute that, the opponent verified the said documents and agreed or assured the complainant of sanctioning of the crop loan of Rs.27000/- or informed the complainant that, the crop loan will be sanction to the complainant by taking the said documents as security. On 26-8-08, the opponent Bank has obtained all the documents in respect of immovable properties of the complainant and also obtained the registered mortgage deed, i.e. mortgage deed by creating equitable mortgage in favor of their bank. It is also not in dispute after obtaining such original and registered document, the opponent Bank has failed to sanction the said crop loan of Rs. 27000/- by hearing the words of other persons, who are in enemical terms with the complainant.


According to the complainant that, the opponent has failed to sanction the said crop loan in order to bring down the reputation of the complainant and the opponent Bank at the instance of the persons who are not in good terms with the complainant has not sanctioned the crop loan and cancelled the said security document executed by the complainant in favor of the opponent Bank. According to the complainant that, the opponent caused mental agony and turmoil to the complainant and the opponent intentionally not sanctioned the loan at the instance of the said persons, who are in enemical terms with the complainant. According to the complainant that, if the said crop loan was sanctioned it would be helpful for the complainant to develop his land and to grow more crop by the complainant in his land, and in this way the opponent caused deficiency in service and on account of the said reason the complainant could not able to raise the crop in his land by sowing the crop at appropriate time.


And on the account of the said reason, the complainant sustained heavy financial loss. The opponent has denied such allegations made by the complainant. The opponent Bank refused to sanction the crop loan at the instance of the persons who are in enemicle terms with the complainant, and the opponent at the instance of other persons not sanction the said loan intentionally and on account of said act, the complainant sustained heavy loss not only mentally but also financially. It is in disputed fact that, the complainant got issued legal notice to the opponent and the opponent replied the said notice on 21-1-09. The complainant has reiterated the averments and the allegations made in the complaint in his affidavit evidence.


The opponent has re-iterated the contentions taken by the opponent Bank in its version in his affidavit evidence. We have gone through the affidavit evidence filed by the complainant and the Manager of the opponent Bank. It is true that the opponent initially on verifying the documents, the opponent had agreed to sanction the crop loan of Rs.27000/- and collected all the relevant documents from the complainant by way of security. Subsequently, the opponent refused to sanction the crop loan and cancel the registered documents executed by complainant, in favor of the Bank. According to the complainant that he sustained loss financially, and also , he was put to great mental agony.


According to the opponent that, before sanctioning of the loan one person by name Hanumanthappa S/o Siddappa approached the opponent Bank and submitted his written objection not to sanction the crop loan in favor of the complainant. According to the opponent that, when the opponent Bank received written objection to the effect that, the said land is in possession and enjoyment of the objector, i.e. Hanumanthappa S/o Siddappa, and he requested the opponent Bank not to sanction any crop loan on particular land. According to the opponent that, the opponent keeping in view or in the interest of the bank, he refused to sanction the loan. i.e. main cause for rejection of the claim made by the complainant for sanctioning of crop loan of Rs.27000/-.


The complainant has contended that, the opponent Bank at the instance of the persons who are in enemical terms with the complainant has not sanction the crop loan intentionally to bring down the reputation of the complainant in the eye of law. According to the complainant that, the said act of the opponent is nothing but deficiency in service. The above said acts of the opponent Bank caused mental agony to the complainant. Further, due to non sanctioning of the crop loan the complainant put to great difficulty and has failed to raise the crop by sowing the seeds at the appropriate stage. Under the above said circumstances, the complainant has sustained financial loss and to put to great hardship and mental agony.



10. On going through the affidavit evidence filed by the complainant and filed by the opponent it could be seen that, the opponent Bank has nothing on record to refuse to sanctioning the crop loan to the complainant. The said Hanumanthappa S/o Siddappa filed his written objections not to sanction the crop loan to the complainant stating that, he is in possession and enjoyment of the said land and the complainant applied for sanctioning of crop loan suppressing the said real fact. The opponent bank was not ready to purchase litigation by sanctioning loan to the complainant and on taking the said disputed property as security and on account of the said reason the opponent Bank with good intention and in the interest of the bank refused to sanction the crop loan to the complainant.


The said objector submitted his written objection stating that, he is in possession and enjoyment of the said property. Ofcourse, the documents produced by the complainant are standing in the name of the complainant. Even then the objector filed his objection before the Bank not to sanction the crop loan stating that, he is in possession and enjoyment of the said land. The bank has no authority or power enquire about dispute between the complainant and the said Hanumanthappa who raised objection. The opponent has claimed huge amount of crop loan. When there is dispute between the complainant and the objector in respect of the said land then, the opponent rightly rejected the sanctioning of the crop loan to the complainant.


It is interesting to note that, the opponent Bank immediately informed the Sub Registrar to cancel the said registered mortgage deed and informed the complainant. Burden is not on the opponent to establish that, there was any dispute or ill will between the complainant and the alleged person, who are in enemical terms with the complainant and the opponent at the instance of the said persons who are in enemical terms with the complainant informed the Bank Manager i.e. the opponent to not to sanction the crop loan as in order to bring down the reputation of the complainant in the eye of public and caused loss to the complainant. In view of the said bald allegations made by the complainant cannot be accepted. It is clear from the affidavit evidence of the opponent that, the opponent is not ready to purchase the litigation by paying or sanctioning crop loan to the complainant. Absolutely there is no material placed on record to show that, the opponent willfully or intentionally refused to sanction the loan at the instance of the persons who are in enemical terms with the complainant. Apart from it, the complainant has not disclosed as to whether there is any dispute between the complainant and the said Hanumanthappa the objector on the other in respect of the said land.


In view of the suppression of the said dispute by the complainant between him and the said Siddappa and that, the opponent has rightly rejected prayer made by the complainant for sanction of crop loan of Rs.27000/- . In the interest of the opponent-bank the Manager of the opponent-bank refused to sanctioning of the crop loan then, it can be stated that there is no any deficiency of service on the part of the opponent. The complainant has produced RTC Extract, Revenue paid receipt, and the certificate issued by the Village Accountant, Receipt Patta, Mutation Register extract and affidavit, Receipt for having purchased the Stamp by paying Rs.95+35, Acknowledgement and cancellation deed executed by opponent-bank.



11. We have gone through the affidavit evidence of both parties and legal notice got issued by the complainant and reply given by the opponent and the documents produced by the complainant that, there is no any deficiency of service on the part of the opponent. The Manager of the opponent-bank in the interest of their bank refused to sanction the loan and the said refusal is not sufficient to hold that, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opponent. The opponent has produced on receipt of Rs.500/- for the month of May-08.


The Counsel for opponent has filed a memo along with Bank Voucher issued by the State Bank Of India, dt.22/5/09. that the opponent deposited Rs.500/- towards the cost. In view of the same the complainant has spent huge amount for the said purpose cannot be accepted. After going through the evidence on record, we have no hesitation to hold that, the complainant has utterly failed to establish that, the opponent caused deficiency in service and mental agony and further, the opponent caused loss to the complainant. Accordingly, we answer Point No.1 in Negative, and Point No.2. as not entitled.

R.S. Paugalendhi,

s/o R.S.Sellappan,

Arangapalayam,

Gudallore East Village(Bit II)

Aravakkurichi Taluk. … Complainant



-versus-



1. The General Manager,

The Trichirappalli Central Co-Op. Bank Ltd.,

No.1, Fort Railway Station Road,

Trichy 620 002.



2. The Manager,

The Trichirappalli Central Co-Op. Bank Ltd.,

Chinnadharapuram and Post,

Aravakkurichi Taluk. … Opposite Parties





This complaint coming on 9th day of July 2009 for final hearing before us in the presence of Thiru K. Subramanian, Counsel for Complainant and Thiru T. Ravikumar, Counsel for Opposite Parties and after heard both sides and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Forum passed the following order:
ORDER



1. The crux of the complaint is as follows : -

The complainant’s father R.S.Sellappan was having a Savings bank account 270 with the second opposite party. The said R.S.Sellappan died intestate on 17.8.2003 leaving behind his wife Smt. Deivanai, his son the complainant herein and daughter Smt. Shenbagam. The deceased has left behind a sum of Rs.1,07,853/- in his S.B. account. A family arrangement took place in August 2003 and accordingly Smt. Shenbagam has received her proportionate share from the complainant. The complainant has submitted the consent letters from his mother Smt. Deivanai and his sister Smt.Shenbagam for transferring the SB account in his name. The opposite parties have not transferred the S.B. account even after expiry of two and half years. The complainant alleges deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and has lodged this complaint to direct the opposite parties to transfer the SB account to his name, for compensation and cost.



2. The crux of the written version is as follows:-

The second opposite party has contended that complainant’s sister Smt. Shenbagam has sent two letters to the opposite parties requesting them not to disburse/transfer the SB account in the name of the complainant as she has not received the proportionate share and the same is in case of Mrs. Deivanai too. Hence the opposite parties are not able to transfer the SB account. The complainant has not provided the copy of the alleged family arrangement. They have processed the requisition and the delay in transfer is due to the above said reason and that there is no deficiency in service or negligence in their part and hence the complaint has to be dismissed.



3. The point for consideration is whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and if so to what relief the complainant is entitled for?



4. The complainant has filed proof affidavit along with 9 documents and the same has been marked as Exhibit A1 to A9. The opposite parties have filed proof affidavit along with ten documents and the same has been marked as Exhibit B1 to B10.



5. The complainant’s father R.S.Sellappan was having a Savings Bank account 270 with the second opposite party. The said R.S.Sellappan died intestate on 17.8.2003 leaving behind his wife Smt. Deivanai, his son the complainant herein and daughter Smt. Shenbagam. The deceased has left behind a sum of Rs.1,07,853/- in his S.B. account. The complainant had stated that family arrangement took place in August 2003 and accordingly Smt. Shenbagam has received her proportionate share from the complainant and has submitted the consent letters from his mother Smt. Deivanai and his sister Smt.Shenbagam for transferring the SB account in his name. All these facts are not disputed by the opposite parties.


The opposite parties have strongly contended that complainant’s sister Smt. Shenbagam has sent two letters to the opposite parties requesting them not to disburse/transfer the SB account in the name of the complainant as she has not received the proportionate share and the same is in case of Mrs. Deivanai too and hence the opposite parties are not able to transfer the SB account. The opposite parties have produced and placed before us the letters written by the said Smt.G.Shenbagam to the second opposite party on 24.1.2004 and 31.1.2004 as Exhibits B2 and B3. This clearly establishes that the request for transfer of the SB Account solely in the name of the complainant is objected and protested by other legal heirs. When one of the legal heirs objects/protests the opposite parties cannot unilaterally transfer the SB account solely to the complainant alone.


The complainant along with his mother on 13.2.2004 after getting knowledge about their sister’s objection has requested the second opposite party to stop the proceedings on his application till the dispute is resolved between themselves. The said letter has been produced and placed before us as Exhibit B6. When there is a dispute between legal heirs regarding the immovable property left behind by the deceased, the complainant ought to have obtained succession certificate from the Court of Law. The complainant has not even produced and placed before us the alleged family arrangement. The complainant has not added his sister Smt. G.Shenbagam as opposite party in the complaint.


The complainant has not uttered a single word in the complaint before this Forum about the protest/objection made by her sister Smt.G.Shenbagam and has concealed this fact and has not approached this Forum with clean hands. Exhibit B6 clearly reveals that the complainant has knowledge about the protest/objection made by his sister Smt.G. Shenbagam. On perusal of the complaint, written version, proof affidavit and documentary evidences placed before us we have no hesitation to hold that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Point is answered accordingly.



6. In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs.

Samineni Tirupaiah, s/o.Atchaiah, 34 years, occu: Agriculture.

2. Pateru Venkateswarlu, s/o.Pullaiah, age: 35 years, occu: Agriculture,

3. Kommineni Rangaiah, s/o.late Satyanarayana, age: 50 years, occu: Agriculture (Legal Heir)

4. Peram China Venkateswarlu, S/o.Laxmaiah, age: 35 years, occu: Agriculture,

All are residents of Gudimalla Village, of Khammam Rural mandal,

Khammam District.

…Complainants

and



1. The Paid Secretary, Edulapuram Primary Agriculture, Co-operative Society,

Edulapuram, Khammam Rural manal, Khammam District.



2. The Supervisor, Edulapuram Primary Agriculture, Cooperative Society,

Edulapuram, Khammam rural mandal, Khammam District.



3. The Branch Manager, District Cooperative Central Bank Rural, P.S.R.Road,

Khammam.



4. The General Manager, District Co-operative Central Bank, Near Women’s college, Khammam.



5. The District Co-operative Officer, C/o.District Coperative office, Near

Women’s college, Khammam.



…Opposite parties.




O R D E R



1. This complaint is filed u/s.12-A of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The averments made in the complaint are that the complainants are the members of Primary Agricultural Cooperative society, Edulapuram village of Khammam rural mandal, took loans on different dates and they have been paying the loan amount regularly to discharge their liability, but the authorities of opposite party No.1 had issued the receipt under suspension account and not adjusting towards the principal amount. The complainant further stated that the Government introduced packages to the farmers to waive the interest to the crop loans of the farmers under the Vidharba scheme. But the opposite party No.1 is recovering the amount and informing that the amount is received as Anamath and later on they would be adjusted therefore keeping the account in suspense. The opposite party No.1 has not given any reason to receive the payments under Anamath account or under suspense.

2. It is further stated by the complainants that the opposite parties have assured to waive the interest by applying Vidharba package introduced by the Government. There is no information or intimation from opposite party No.1 to credit it towards compound interest of their loan. Without applying the Vidharba package, the opposite parties are keeping the account of complainants in suspense, and they are collecting the amount towards interest on the loan amount and also penal interest. Hence, this complaint, direct the opposite parties to adjust the amounts whatever paid towards discharge of principal loan amount taken by the complainants and to direct them to apply the Vidharba package and waive the interest.

3. Apart from the complaint, complainant No.1 filed his affidavit and filed the following documents.



4. On receipt of notice, the opposite parties appeared through their counsel and filed counters. In the counter of opposite parties No.1 to 4, it is denied that the complainants paid installments regularly. It is stated by the opposite parties No.1 to 4 that the Govt. of Andhra Pradesh has introduced the packages to Agricultural farmers i.e. to waive penal interest and IOD on interest component, to whom repaid their loans in full on or before 30-6-2006. In order to give such facility, the amount remitted by them was kept under suspense account. But the complainants did not get benefit under the said scheme, as the complainants not paid the entire loan outstanding balance within the stipulate time i.e. on or before 30-6-2006.


It is further stated that the complainants are not entitled to claim waive of interest under Vidharba package, since the package announced by the Central Government in the month of October, 2006 but the complainants have paid much before amounts were appropriated to their loan accounts. So they cannot claim the benefits under future scheme for the amounts already paid by them and the same were adjusted to their loan accounts. As such there is no deficiency in service and prayed to dismiss the complaint.

5. Opposite party No.5 filed his counter and stated that he has no connection with the implementation of Vidharba package, he is only the supervising authority over all cooperative societies in Khammam District and prayed to delete him from the complaint.

6. Apart from the counter of opposite party Nos.1 to 4, they filed the following documents.

(i) Xerox copy of Circular, dt.9-3-2006

(ii) Xerox copy of Circular, dt.15-3-2006

(iii)Xerox copy of Proceedings of commissioner cooperation and Registrar of

co-operative societies, A.P., Hyderabaddt.2-3-2006.



(iv) Xerox copy of Circular, dt.6-4-2006

(v) Xerox copy of Circular, dt.4-3-2006

(vi) Xerox copy of Circular, dt.30-11-2006

(vii) Xerox copy of Disbursement cum loan ledger for the year 1995-1996.

7. Heard the arguments on both sides. Upon perusing the material papers on record and upon hearing the arguments, the point that arose for consideration is,

Whether the complainants are entitled to claim as prayed for?

Point:

8. It is an admitted fact that the complainants are the members of PACS, Yedulapurma and they availed long term loans. It is also an admitted fact that the complainants have paid some amount towards their crop loan account and the opposite parties had put these amounts under suspension account and after some time the opposite parties adjusted their amounts towards payment of interest.

9. It is the contention of the opposite parties that the State Government announced the rebate of interest scheme, the central Government announced P.M. relief package (Vidharba). In the month of October, in which total waiver of interest was given to the farmers. Accordingly, the complainant availed the following benefit under Vidharba package.

Sl. No.


Name of the member


Amount benefited (Rs.)



01.




Samineni Tirupaiah




33,615-00

02.


Pateru Venkateswarlu


24,276-00

03.


Kommineni Rangaiah


1,24,496-00

04.


Peram Chinna Venkateswarlu


66,869-00


10. Hence, we are of the opinion that the opposite parties have not followed the rules and regulations of Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society Act and without any authority, the authorities of opposite parties put the payments made by the complainants under suspense account. It amounts to deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. Hence, the complaint is fit to be allowed.

11. In the result, the complaint is allowed, directing the opposite party to pay an amount of Rs.1,000/- towards damages to each of the complainant.

A. Jayalakshmi,

W/o.Late.A.Gunasekhar Achary,

D.No.1/48, Athuru village & post,

Renigunta Mandal,

Chittoor District. … Complainant



VS



1. The Chittoor District Co-operative Central Bank Ltd.,

Represented by its General Manager,

Head Office at Kongareddipalle,

Chittoor – 517 001.



2. The Renigunta Primary Agricultural Co-operative Society Ltd.,

(Erstwhile Gajulamandyam PACS),

Renigunta,

Represented by its Chief Executive Officer,

Holding office at Renigunta,

Chittoor District.



3. The I.C.I.C.I. Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd.,

Represented by its Manager,

Head Office at I.C.I.C.I. Bank Towers,

Bandra Kurla Complex,

Mumbai – 400 051.



4. The I.C.I.C.I. Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd.,

Regional Office at D.No.6-3-352/1, 3rd and 4th Floors,

Road No.1, Banjara Hills,

Hyderabad.



5. The I.C.I.C.I. Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd.,

D.No.10-14-577, R.V.Towers, 4th Floor,

Tilak Road,

Tirupati – 517 501,

Chittoor District. … Opposite parties.







ORDER




This complaint is filed under Section-12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986, to pass an order directing the opposite parties to pay the insured sum of Rs.50,000/- with interest at 18% per annum from the date of claim till the date of realization, to pay Rs.50,000/- for the loss, hardship and mental agony caused, and to pay the costs of the complaint to the complainant.

2. The averments of the complaint in brief are :- The opposite party No.1 insured the lives of all the members of Primary Agricultural Co-operative Societies in Chittoor District, who have been covered under Co-operative Kisan Credit Card (CKCC) holders scheme on un-named basis for 1,04,264 members for a sum of Rs.50,000/- per head in case of death and Rs.25,000/- per head in case of loss of one limb or one eye vide policy No.4012/0000980 dt:29.04.2006, which will be in force from 10.04.2006 to 09.04.2007 by entering into a contract of insurance with opposite party No.4.


The complainant’s husband late.A.Gunasekhara Achary, who was a member of opposite party No.2, availed loan under loan No.RS/56 towards development of agriculture. The opposite party No.2 issued CKCC pass book No.131 in the name of the deceased Gunasekhara Achary. The said Gunasekhara Achary died in a road accident on 06.03.2007. The matter was informed to opposite parties 1 and 2 and requisite proposals were sent to opposite party No.4 through proper channel. A Surveyor / Investigator was deputed by opposite party No.4 and investigation was done.


The complainant, who is the legally wedded wife of the deceased Gunasekhara Achary, is the nominee and she claimed the compensation fulfilling all the requirements. Inspite of repeated demands, the opposite parties failed to settle the claim even after lapse of about 11/2 years. The complainant got issued legal notice to the opposite parties on 10.09.2008 to pay the insurance claim of Rs.50,000/- with interest at 18% per annum from the date of claim till the date of payment. The opposite parties duly acknowledged the receipt of the legal notice.


The opposite party No.3 through letter dt:11.10.2008 addressed to the counsel for the complainant requested to furnish the original post-mortem report to settle the claim. Since the original post-mortem report is filed before III Additional District Munsif Magistrate, Tirupati, the complainant furnished the certified copy of post-mortem report to opposite party No.3 under intimation to other parties. It was acknowledged by all the opposite parties, but the claim has not been settled till today. The acts of opposite parties amount to clear negligence and deficiency in service. The opposite parties by not settling the insurance claim put the complainant to serious loss, hardship and mental agony. Hence the complaint.

3. The opposite parties resisted the complaint. In the counter filed on behalf of opposite party No.2, adopted by opposite party No.1, while admitting the allegations made in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the complaint and denying the other material allegations made in the complaint, it is inter alia stated that as on the date of death, the policy was in force and hence the amount, if any, is payable by the Insurance Company i.e., opposite parties 3 to 5. The deceased was the member of the Primary Agricultural Co-operative Society, Renigunta, erstwhile Gajulamandyam Primary Agricultural Co-operative Society. If any claim arise that would be payable by opposite parties 3 to 5. The opposite party No.2 is only a formal party. Hence the complaint against opposite party No.2 may be dismissed with costs.

4. In the counter filed on behalf of opposite parties 3 to 5, while denying the allegations made in the complaint, it is inter alia stated that the opposite parties issued policy No.4012/0000980 in the name of Chittoor District Co-operative Bank covering risk for the period from 10.04.2006 to 09.04.2007. As per the terms and conditions of the policy, upon happening of any event, which may give rise to any claim under the policy, written notice with full particulars must be given to the opposite parties immediately within one calendar month after the death, unless reasonable cause is shown. In the present case, the accident happened on 06.03.2007.


The opposite parties received the claim form after lapse of time stipulated in the policy. The required papers were also not submitted. Inspite of lapse of time, the opposite parties asked the complainant to produce original post-mortem certificate to settle the claim. Since the complainant did not submit the same, the opposite parties have not settled the claim. There is no willful negligence on the part of opposite parties in discharging services. The complaint may be dismissed with costs against opposite parties 3 to 5, since the complainant violated the terms and conditions of the policy.

5. In support of the averments made in the complaint, the complainant filed her affidavit and got marked Exs. A1 to A13. Ex.A1 is xerox copy of pages 1 to 3 of pass book issued by opposite party No.2 in the name of A.Gunasekhara Achary. Ex.A2 is xerox copy of Janata Personal Accident Insurance Policy issued by opposite party No.3 in the name of opposite party No.1 with letter dt:29.04.2006. Ex.A3 is xerox copy of F.I.R. No.12 dt:06.03.2007 under Section-304(A) IPC of Gajulamandyam P.S. Ex.A4 is xerox copy of claim form for Personal Accident Insurance Policy submitted by the complainant to opposite party No.3.


Ex.A5 is xerox copy of post-mortem certificate of A.Gunasekhara Achary, issued by Assistant Professor, Department of Forensic Medicine, S.V.Medical College, Tirupati. Ex.A6 is xerox copy of Death Certificate of A.Gunasekhara Achary, issued by Tahsildar, Renigunta mandal. Ex.A7 is xerox copy of letter dt:28.05.2008 addressed by opposite party No.1 to opposite party No.4. Ex.A8 is xerox copy of legal notice dt:10.09.2008 got issued by the complainant to opposite parties 1 to 5. Ex.A9 is bunch of postal receipts, 5 in number, for Ex.A8 notice.


Ex.A10 is bunch of postal acknowledgements, 5 in number, of opposite parties 1 to 5 for Ex.A8 notice. Ex.A11 is letter dt:11.10.2008 addressed by opposite party No.3 to the advocate for complainant. Ex.A12 is xerox copy of legal notice dt:16.12.2008 got issued by the complainant to opposite party No.3, marking copies to opposite parties 1,2,4 and 5, with speed post receipts. Ex.A13 is bunch of postal acknowledgements, 5 in number, of opposite parties 1 to 5 for Ex.A12 notice.

6. In support of the version taken in the counter, the opposite party No.2 filed his affidavit. In support of the version taken in the counter, no affidavit on behalf of opposite parties 3 to 5 was filed. No documents are also filed on behalf of opposite parties 1 to 5.

7. On behalf of the complainant written arguments were filed. On behalf of opposite parties 1 and 2, and opposite parties 3 to 5 memos were filed to treat the counters as written arguments. We have heard the oral arguments of counsel of both sides.

8. On the basis of pleadings, the points that arise for determination are:-

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties towards the complainant?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed? If so, to what extent?

3. To what result?

9. Point No.1:- The brief facts of the case are:- A.Gunasekhara Achary, who was the member of opposite party No.2 availed loan under loan No.RS/56 for development of agriculture. The opposite party No.2 issued the original of Ex.A1 pass book bearing No.131 in the name of Gunasekhara Achary. The opposite party No.1 entered into a contract of insurance with opposite party No.4 insuring the lives of all the members of Primary Agricultural Co-operative Societies in Chittoor District, who have been covered under Co-operative Kisan Credit Card (CKCC) holders scheme for a sum of Rs.50,000/- per head in case of death and Rs.25,000/- per head in case of loss of one limb or one eye.


The opposite party No.4 addressed the original of Ex.A2 letter dt:29.04.2006 enclosing policy bearing No.4012/0000980 dt:29.04.2006 for the policy period from 10.04.2006 to 09.04.2007. A.Gunsekhara Achary died in a road accident on 06.03.2007. On the complaint of one B.Muni Rami Reddy, Gajulamandyam police registered the original of Ex.A3 F.I.R. No.12/2007 for the offence under Section-304 (A) IPC against the driver of Bharati Roadways bus bearing No.TN 23S 9000.


The Assistant Professor, Department of Forensic Medicine, S.V.Medical College, Tirupati, conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of A.Gunasekhara Achary on 07.03.2007 and issued the original of Ex.A5 post-mortem report opining that the death was due to trauma to thoracic spine and left lung. The Tahsildar, Renigunta mandal issued the original of Ex.A6 Death Certificate. The complainant, who is the legally wedded wife of A.Gunasekhara Achary and nominee, sent the original of Ex.A4 claim form to opposite party No.4 on 30.11.2007.


The opposite party No.1 with reference to letter dt:30.01.2008 of opposite party No.4 submitted the post-mortem report in respect of death claim of late.A.Gunsekhara Achary to opposite party No.4 with the original of Ex.A7 letter dt:28.05.2008. As the claim of the complainant was not settled, she got issued the original of Ex.A8 legal notice to all the opposite parties. All the opposite parties received the notice. The opposite party No.3 addressed Ex.A11 letter to the advocate for complainant requesting to submit the original post-mortem report.


The advocate for complainant under the original of Ex.A12 notice sent certified copy of the post-mortem report of A.Gunasekhara Achary, to opposite party No.3 informing that the original post-mortem report is filed before the III Additional District Munsif Magistrate Court, Tirupati, under intimation to opposite parties 1,2,4 and 5. As the opposite parties did not settle the claim, the complainant filed the complaint on 07.04.2009.

10. Admittedly, the opposite parties 3 and 4 issued policy bearing No. 4012/0000980 in the name of opposite party No.1 covering the risk of 1,04,264 members of Primary Agricultural Co-operative Societies in Chittoor District, for the period from 10.04.2006 to 09.04.2007. Exs. A3, A5 and A6 establish that A.Gunasekhara Achary, who was the member of opposite party No.2 died in road accident on 06.03.2007. While admitting that on the date of death of A.Gunasekhara Achary the policy was in force, opposite parties 1 and 2 submitted that only opposite parties 3 to 5 have to pay the insurance amount.


In the counter, the opposite parties 3 to 5 took the plea that as per the terms and conditions of the policy, upon happening of any event which may give rise to any claim under the policy, written notice with full particulars must be given to them immediately within one calendar month after the death unless reasonable cause is shown, that they received claim after lapse of time stipulated in the policy and that inspite of lapse of time, they asked the complainant to produce original post-mortem certificate to settle the claim, but the complainant failed to do so. Their contention is that there is no willful negligence on their part and the complaint is liable to be dismissed as the complainant violated the terms and conditions of the policy.


This contention is untenable. The opposite parties 3 to 5 waived the time stipulated in the policy and sought for original post-mortem report of the deceased A.Gunasekhara Achary. The complainant promptly submitted the certified copy of post-mortem report of A.Gunasekhara Achary, informing that the original post-mortem report is filed before III Additional District Munsif Magistrate Court, Tirupati.


Since the original post-mortem report is filed in the criminal case filed against the driver of the Bharati Roadways bus TN 23S 9000, there was no possibility for the complainant to submit the original post-mortem report. Though the complainant sent certified copy of post-mortem report on 16.12.2008, the opposite parties 3 to 5 failed to settle the claim of the complainant. There is absolutely no justification on the part of opposite parties 3 to 5 in not settling the claim even after receipt of certified copy of post-mortem report of A.Gunasekhara Achary from the complainant.

11. For the above reasons, we find that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties 3 to 5 towards the complainant. There is, however, no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties 1 and 2 towards the complainant. This point is accordingly answered.

12. Point No.2:- In view of our finding on point No.1, the complainant is entitled to the insurance amount of Rs.50,000/- payable by the opposite parties 3 to 5. The complainant claimed interest at 18% per annum from the date of claim, till the date of realization.


The complainant submitted post-mortem report of A.Gunasekhara Achary to opposite party No.3 only on 16.12.2008. Therefore, the complainant cannot claim interest from the date of claim. The reasonable time for settling the claim of the complainant after receipt of post-mortem certificate could be one month. In our view, the complainant is entitled to the present bank rate of interest at 9% per annum on the insurance amount from 16.01.2009, till the date of realization. The complainant claimed compensation of Rs.50,000/-. There is no basis for claiming such huge amount towards compensation.


Further, since interest is granted on the insurance amount, the complainant is not entitled to separate amount towards compensation. The complainant is, however, entitled to Rs.1,500/- towards costs of the complaint. Hence, we find that the complainant is entitled to the insurance amount of Rs.50,000/- with interest at 9% per annum from 16.01.2009 till the date of realization and Rs.1,500/- towards costs of the complaint from opposite parties 3 to 5. This point is accordingly answered.

13. Point No.3:- In the result, the complaint is allowed in part directing the opposite parties 3 to 5 to pay the insurance amount of Rs.50,000/- with interest at 9% per annum from 16.01.2009, till the date of realization and to pay Rs.1,500/- towards costs of the complaint to the complainant within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of order.

The complaint against opposite parties 1 and 2 is dismissed, but without costs.

K CHANRAN
...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

THE SECRETARY,KARANNUR SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD

KSCCF
...........Respondent(s)






ORDER





The complainant obtained Neethi gas connection through the 1st opposite party from the 2nd opposite party on deposit of Rs.5750/-. At the time of giving connection, the 2nd opposite party undertook to supply refilled gas cylinders as and when required. But according to the complainant, even after repeated demands the 2nd opposite party did not supply the refilled gas cylinders as requested by the complainant. Hence he is seeking for the return of the amount of Rs.5750/-.

The 2nd opposite party filed a version contending as follows: It is true that the complainant obtained Neethi gas connection from the 2nd opposite party and the 2nd Opposite party received an amount of Rs.5750/- from the complainant at the time of giving connection. The complainant is not entitled to get refund of any amount. The amount deposited by the complainant is expended for giving connection. Hence the complainant is not entitled to get any relief.

On the above pleadings the only point for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief?

It is the admitted fact that the complainant obtained Neethi gas connection from the 2nd opposite party on deposit of an amount of Rs.5750/-. According to the complainant though the 2nd opposite party agreed to supply refilled gas cylinders as and when required, they did not supply refilled gas cylinders as requested by the complainant. Hence he is seeking for the refund of the amount. 2nd opposite party contended that the amount cannot be refunded and it is not a deposit and the opposite party is entitled to retain the amount. But no authority is produced to show under what ground they are entitled to retain the amount. Hence we find that the complainant is entitled to get refund of Rs.5250/-.

In the result the petition is allowed and the 2nd opposite party is ordered to pay an amount of Rs.5250/- to the complainant and on receipt of the amount the complainant is bound to return the gas cylinders and regulator to the 2nd opposite party.

Jalaludheen

S/o. Arukutty Rawther

8/604 Ayyappankavu

Kadamkode

Karingarapully

Palakkad. - Complainant





V/s




Secretary

The Palakkad Service Co-operative Bank

Kalleppully Branch

Palakkad. Opposite Party



O R D E R



The complainant has deposited one lakh rupees for 91 days on 12.10.2002 as per Fixed Deposit No.4459 and on 17.01.2003 he had redeposited for 91 days. On 26.06.2003 as per three Fixed Deposits receipt Nos 5162,5163, 5164 the complainant deposited Rs.30,000/-, Rs.40,000/- and Rs.30,000/- respectively. Thereafter complainant transferred the whole amount to SB Account No.959 of same Bank. On 11/11/2002, a fixed deposit for an amount of Rs.84,000/- together with its interest and a sum of Rs.13,600/- was deposite d with the opposite party. Complainant applied for getting fixed deposit certificate for One lakh rupees deposited on 11.11.2002.


The Opposite Party Bank failed to hand over the same to the complainant. Complainant was asked to come and collect the certificate at a convenient time. Though the complainant demanded the certificate, the Opposite Party Bank has failed to give the fixed deposit certificate till date. A lawyer notice dated 30/11/06 was issued to the opposite party bank . But the Opposite party has not sent any reply notice. Hence the complainant filed this complaint for seeking an order directing the Opposite party to issue the fixed deposit certificate for Rs.one lakh rupees and future interest @ 12% per annum till the date of realization.

- 2 -

The opposite party filed version stating the following contentions. The Opposite Party Bank admitted that the complainant was a customer of opposite party and maintains a Savings Bank Account. The Opposite party totally denied the say of the complainant that he filed an application for issuing Fixed Deposit certificate of one lakh rupees on 11.11.2002. The complainant has not given Fixed Deposit certificate of Rs.82,000/- and chalan receipt of Rs.13,000/- with the opposite party. Since no such amount was deposited Opposite party has not issued any Fixed Deposit certificate. Anytime a customer deposit an amount, the usual practice of the Bank is to issue a challan receipt. Thereafter the complainant transferred the Fixed Deposit amount to SB account on 28.08.2003. At that time there was not any dispute regarding the deposit made on 11/11/2002. According to Opposite party, there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party.




Complainant filed affidavit and documents. Exhibit A1 marked. Opposite party also filed chief affidavit along with documents. Exhibit B1 to B12 marked. Matter was heard.




Issues to be considered are:

1. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite party?

2. If so, what is the relief and cost?




Points 1 & 2



The only question to be decided is whether the complainant has deposited an amount of Rs.1 lakh as fixed deposit in the opposite party bank on 11/11/02 and whether he is entitled for the certificate of the same. The say of the complainant is that on 11/11/02, Fixed Deposit for Rs.82,000/- together with its interest and an amount f Rs.13,600/- was deposited with the opposite party bank. The total amount comes to Rs.1 lakh. Complainant claimed Fixed Deposit certificate for the said amount and it was not issued by the opposite party. Subsequent to the alleged transaction many other fixed deposits were made by the complainant and there is no dispute regarding any of the them. As per the order in the I.A filed by the complainant, opposite party produced the relevant available documents with the bank viz. Fixed Deposit receipts issued and statement of accounts of the complainant

during the relevant period. None of the documents reveals the fact that complainant has deposited an amount of Rs.1 lakh as fixed deposit in the opposite party bank. Complainant itself seems to be a vague one. We are of the view that complainant miserably failed to prove a case in his favour.

N.S. Nair, Kamala Nivas, Mali bhagom Muri, Thekkumbahgom Village, Chavara South.P.O., Kollam - 691 584
...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

Kerala State Co-Operative Consumers Federation Limited and Other

Thekkumbhagom Service Co-Operative Bank
...........Respondent(s)







ORDER





This Is a complaint filed by seeking a direction to the opp.party for cancellation of LPG connection and to refund Rs.5500/- deposited by the complainant as security deposit for Neethi Gas connection.



The complainant’s case can be briefly summarized as follows:



The complainant is consumer No.22155 of the opp.party. The complainant attracted by the offer of the opp.party that instant LPG connection will be provided for Rs.5500/-. Complainant deposited the above sum and took the LPG connection. But there is inordinate delay in providing refills. Exorbitant charge is also levied for refills compared to the gas supplied by the other agencies. Due to the deficiency in service the complainant is not interested in continuing as a consumer of the opp.party. The complainant issued a notice requesting to cancel the LPG connection and to refund the security deposited as Rs.5500/- But the opp.party not refund the amount and hence the complaint.



The opp.party filed a version contending interalis, that the complaint is not maintainable under section 69 of Kerala Co-operative societies Act that LPG connection was provided to the complainant by the opp.party collecting Rs.5750/- at a time when there was inordinate delay for getting LPG connection, that out of it Rs.5500/- was given to Sreesakthi LPG Ltd with whom the 1st opp.party has entered into an agreement for supply of refill that the said Sreesakthi LPG Ltd abruptly stopped their business with the result that the opp.party could not supply the refill in time, that there is no deficiency in service or delay in supplying refills, that the amount collected cannot be refunded and that here the complaint may be dismissed.



Points that would arise for consideration are:

1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opp.parties.

2. Reliefs and costs.



For the complainant PW.1 is examined. Ext.P1 to P5 are marked.

No oral or documentary evidence is adduced by the opp.parties

Points 1 and 2



As a matter of fact there is no dispute that the complainant is a consumer of the opp.party. The contention of the complaint is that there is deficiency in service. There is inordinate delay in supply of refills and exorbitant price is changed for the refills. Therefore the complainant does not want to continue as a consumer of the opp.parties. Though the 1st opp.party would contend in the version that there is no delay in supply of refills or deficiency in service, no evidence is adduced to establish that contentions. The opp.parties did not cross examine the complaint. Therefore the evidence adduced lby the complainant stands unimpeached. In these circumstances we are constrained to find that there is deficiency in service on the part of the 1st opp.party and the complainant is entitled to get an order as prayed for. Points found accordingly,



In the result the complaint is allowed directing the 1st opp.party to refund the security deposit of Rs.5500/- to the complainant after canceling the LPG connection. The opp.parties are also directed to pay Rs.1000/- to the complainant towards cost and compensation. The complainant will returned gas cylinders and the regulator to the 1st opp.party on getting the refund of the security deposit. The order is to be complied with within one month from the date of receipt of the order.

Miss RuchikaD/o Sh. Yadvender Singh Chauhan,

R/o Mohalla Amarpur, Nahan Distt. Sirmour.



… Complainant.

Versus





M/s Vee Ess Communications,

Cooperative Bank The Mall, Nahan,

Distt. Sirmaur, H.P.

Through its Prop. Sh. Vishal Tomar

S/o Sh. Rupinder Singh Tomar.

… Opposite party.






O R D E R:




The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant against the OP, by invoking the provisions of Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant avers that he purchased a telephone set, i.e. Walky-FM from the OP, on, 08.05.2007, for a sale consideration of Rs.1850/-, which developed defects, inasmuch, as, FM radio was not working properly, hence, handed over the said set to the OP No.1, for repairs, who did not return the said set to him after repairs. Hence, it is averred that there is apparent deficiency in service on the part of the OP and accordingly relief to the extent as detailed in the relief clause be awarded in favour of the complainant.

2. The OP No.1, filed reply to the complaint, and denied the entire allegations, leveled against it, by the complainant, hence, sought dismissal of the complaint, their being no deficiency in service on its part.

3. Thereafter the parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents in support of their rival contentions.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have also thoroughly scanned the entire record of the case meticulously.

5. The complainant, is, aggrieved by the act of the OP No.1, having sold to him a defective instrument, on, 08.05.2007, inasmuch, as, there was a shortcoming in it, through, promised not to be existing in the warranty card. A perusal of the warranty card placed on record does reveal the fact that the instrument, as purchased by the complainant from the OP No.1, promised to the customer the service of FM radio. The complainant averred, that, for rectifying the defect, he, had handed over the set to the OP No.1, yet, no, proof of his having handed over the instrument to OP No.1, for rectification of the shortcoming, has, been placed on record. Yet when, the OP No.1 has, while contending that the instrument was not handed over to it, has placed on record, an abstract from the register maintained by him disclosing the receipts of goods received by him from customers for rectification of facts/ defects.

6. Nonetheless, the OP No.1, though, in, the heading of the abstract of the register maintained by it, of goods received for rectification of defects, is, of the month of March, 2007, yet, the dates, on, which, goods have been disclosed to have been received from various customers detailed in it, commence, from, the month of July, which, is, rather, misleading, as, it has not been maintained for the month of May, 2007, nor, also, since the dates as reflected in it, as stated above commence from the month of July, 2007, which, is, not the stage, when the instrument was purportedly handed over to the OP No.1, as admittedly, it had come to be handed over to the OP No.1, in the month of May, as such, the non-adduction of an abstract of the Register, by, the OP No.1, for, the month of May, when, the OP No.1 contend, that, they, maintain, a, Register reflecting the receipts of goods by them for rectification of defects, and since, it, comprised the best evidence, its withholding results in the inference that had it, been produced, it would have falsified the stand of the OP No.1.

7. Moreover, in the light of the exercise as indulged by the OP No.1, in denying the claim of the complainant, while relying upon a misleading document, it, has, to be concluded that the complainant did hand over the instrument to the OP No.1 for rectification, hence, in its not rectifying the defect, detected in it, the OP No.1 has committed deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

8. Consequently, we allow this complaint and direct the OP No.1 to replace the defective instrument, with the new one of the same, make and model, failing which the OP No.1, shall be liable to refund the cost of the instrument to the complainant, i.e., amounting to Rs.1850/-. In addition to this, the OP No.1 shall also pay a sum of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant, as compensation for rendering him deficient service, as also, cost of litigation quantified at Rs.500/-. This order shall be complied with by the OP No.1, within a period of forty rive days after the date of receipt of copy of this order. The learned counsel for the contesting parties undertook to collect the certified copy of this order from the office, free of cost, as per rules. The file after due completion, be consigned to record room.

K.N.Bharathi,

Renjith Nivas,

Irivery Complainant


vs


1. Secretary,

Koyyod Service co.op.Bank,

P.O.P.O.Koyyod

2. Managing Director,

Kerala State Co.op.Consumer Federation, opposite parties

Gandhi Nagar, Kochi.





O R D E R




This is a complaint filed under section12 of the consumer protection Act for getting an order directing the opposite parties to refund Rs.5750/- with interest and cost

The case of the complainant in brief is as follows: The opposite parties jointly provided gas connection for domestic purpose. The opposite parties offered spot connection and regular supply of gas cylinders without any delay. When complainant approached the 1st opposite party he assured that 2nd opposite party will provide gas connection on deposit of Rs.5750/- and that will be refunded in the event of termination of the gas connection. Complainant paid Rs.5750/- and availed gas connection. But later on the supply of gas happened to be irregular as against the assurance of 1st opposite party. Moreover the supplied refilled gas cylinders were of substandard quality and quantity. Hence the complainant cancelled the gas connection and asked for refund of the amount. 1st opposite party was not ready to refund the amount and hence the complaint.

On receiving the complaint, notices were issued to the opposite parties. Even though opposite parties served notices they did not take care to appear and to file their version before this Forum. The opposite parties subsequently called absent and set exparte

On the above pleadings the following issues were raised for consideration.

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled for remedy as prayed in the complaint?

3. Relief and cost.

The evidence consists of oral testimony of complainant asPW1and Exts.A1, A2.and A3.

Issue Nos. 1 to 3

The complainant has stated in the complaint that he has availed gas connection from 1st opposite party by paying an amount of Rs.5750/-. The complainant was assured that the amount would be refunded at the time when the equipments are surrendered. Ext.A1 is the receipt issued by 1st opposite party which proves that the complainant has taken gas connection from opposite parties. Complainant stated that the opposite parties did not supply gas regularly. It is understandable that if there is no supply of gas that creates much trouble to those consumers of gas users.


When it was complained to 1st opposite party his explanation was that 2nd opposite party and Koldy petroleum are responsible for those troubles. Ext.A2 is the connection certificate which shows the complainant has taken gas connection from opposite parties. Ext.A3 is the surrendering certificate which shows that complainant has surrendered two cylinders and one regulator to 1st opposite party. Hence all the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to refund Rs.5750/- to the complainant. Thus issues 1 to 3 are found in favour of the complainant.

In the result, complaint is allowed directing the opposite parties to refund Rs.5750/-(Rupees Five thousand Seven hundred and fifty only) to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant is allowed to execute the order against the opposite parties under the provisions of consumer protection Act.

Thottummoth Kunhamina,

Thottummoth House,

Koyyod, P.O.Koyyod Complainant




1. Secretary,

Koyyod Service co.op.Bank,

P.O.Koyyod.

2. Managing Director,

Kerala State Co.op.Consumer Federation, Opposite parties

Gandhi Nagar, Kochi.

3. Manager,

Koldy Petroleum India Ltd.,

Moongilamada,Vannamada,

Palakkad.

O R D E R



This is a complaint filed under section12 of the consumer protection Act for getting an order directing the opposite parties to refund Rs.5750/- with interest and cost

The case of the complainant in brief is as follows: The opposite parties jointly provided gas connection for domestic purpose. The opposite parties offered spot connection and regular supply of gas cylinders without any delay. When complainant approached the 1st opposite party he assured that 2nd opposite party will provide gas connection on deposit of Rs.5750/- that will be refunded in the event of termination of the gas connection. Complainant paid Rs.5750/- and availed gas connection. But later on the supply of gas happened to be irregular as against the assurance of 1st opposite party. More over they supplied refilled gas cylinders of substandard quality and quantity. Hence the complainant cancelled the gas connection and asked for refund of the amount. 1st opposite party was not ready to refund the amount and hence the complaint.

On receiving the complaint, notices were issued to the opposite parties and opposite parties 2 and 3 filed their version. 2nd opposite party filed their version contending that at the time of giving cooking gas connection consumer fed had received Rs.5750/- from all consumers. Out of this amount Rs.5500/- was given to Koldy Petroleum India Ltd. and Rs.100/-to primary societies through which connection was availed and consumer fed itself appropriated Rs.150/-. As per the agreement with the Koldy Petroleum India Ltd. they supplied two cylinders and one regulator to each consumer.

3rd Opposite party filed their version contending that 3rd opposite party is not liable to refund any amount to the complainant. The complaint has been filed by the complainant for getting refund of the amount deposited by him for getting LPG connection from the 1st opposite party. In the absence of any agreement between the complainant and 3rd opposite party, 3rd opposite party has not offered any service to the complainant.

On the above pleadings the following issues were raised for consideration.

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled for remedy as prayed in the complaint?

3. Relief and cost.

The evidence consists of Exts.A1.and A2.





Issue Nos. 1 to 3

The complainant has stated in the complaint that she has availed gas connection from 1st opposite party by paying an amount of Rs.5750/-. The complainant was assured that the amount would be refunded at the time when the equipments are surrendered. Ext.A1 is the receipt which shows that the complainant has already paid the amount to 1st opposite party. Ext.A2 is the surrendering certificate which shows that the complainant has surrendered two cylinders and one regulator to 1`st opposite party. Hence all the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to refund Rs.5750/- to the complainant. Thus issues 1 to 3 are found in favour of the complainant.

In the result, complaint is allowed directing the opposite parties to refund Rs.5750/-(Rupees Five thousand Seven hundred and fifty only) to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant is allowed to execute the order against the opposite parties under the provisions of consumer protection Act.

M.Muhammed,

Haneefa Manzil,

Madukkoth,

P.O.Varam Complainant



1. Secretary,

Kappad Service co.op.Bank,

P.O.Kappad

2. Managing Director,

Kerala State Co.op.Consumer Federation, opposite parties

Gandhi Nagar, Kochi.

3.Manager,

Koldy Petrtoleum India,

Moongilmada,Vannamada,

Kozhinhampara,Palakkad.



O R D E R




This is a complaint filed under section12 of the consumer protection Act for getting an order directing the opposite parties to refund Rs.5750/- with compensation and cost.

As per the averments in the complaint the complainant has taken gas connection from 1st opposite party on 24.4.98. The distribution of gas connection is a joint effort of all the opposite parties. Complainant paid Rs.5750/- at the time of taking the connection. Opposite parties are liable to return the amount at the time of surrendering the equipments inconsequence of disconnection as assured by 1st opposite party. Since the gas distribution happened to be irregular and increase in price Complainant surrendered the equipments on 12.5.09 and requested to refund the amount. Opposite parties did not refund the amount even after the surrender of cylinders and regulator. Hence this complaint.

After receiving the complaint, Forum sent notice to both sides. But Opposite parties did not enter appearance except sending a version by opposite parties 2 and 3.

2nd opposite party consumer Fed though not made appearance sent version contending that the complaint is not maintainable since it is hit by section 69 of Kerala co.op.Socieites Act. The difficulties and hurdles that had been faced by the consumer fed found place elaborate explanation. But it has been admitted that at the time of giving cooking gas connection consumer Fed had received Rs.5750/- from the entire consumer including the complainant in this OP. As per the contention all the difficulties aroused due to the stoppage of supplying filled cylinders by the Koldy petroleum India Ltd. There is no deficiency on the part of consumer fed. Hence the opposite parties are at liability to refund of connection fee to the complainant. Koldy Petroleum India Ltd. also denied the liability.

On the above pleadings the following issues have been taken for consideration.

1. Whether there is any deficiency on the part of the opposite parties?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the remedy as prayed in the complaint?

3. Relief and cost.

The evidence consists of the oral evidence adduced by the complainant and the documentary evidence. Exts.A1 and A2 marked on the side of the complainant.





Issue Nos. 1 to 3

The complainant’s case is that she has taken cooking gas connection by paying Rs.5750/-. It can be understood that at first instance cooking gas had been regularly supplied but subsequently opposite parties failed to supply gas uninterruptedly when gas is not available there is no meaning in keeping the equipments. If the complainant happened to be surrendered the connection and returned the cylinders and regulator due to the non availability of cooking gas he cannot be blamed.

Anyhow, if the gas is not uninterruptedly supplied that is a deficiency in service. In such case there is no doubt the amount paid by the complainant consumer has to be refunded, in case of surrendering the connection and returning the equipments.


The chief affidavit stated that opposite party has not supplied the gas regularly. Ext.A1 shows that the payment is made by the complainant. Ext.A2 proves that the cylinder and regulator has been returned to opposite party. Taking in to account the available circumstances and the facts on record we are of opinion that the complainant is entitled to get the amount Rs.5750/- refunded. The issue Nos. 1 to 3 partly found in favour of complainant.

In the result, complaint is allowed directing the opposite parties to refund Rs.5750/-(Rupees Five thousand Seven hundred and fifty only) to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant is allowed to execute the order against the opposite parties under the provisions of consumer protection Act.

P.Karunakaran,

Panikkarayil House, Complainant

P.O.Andalure,

P.O.Palayad,Thalassery.





1. Managing Director,

Kerala State Co.op.Consumer Federation, Opposite parties

Gandhi Nagar, Kochi

2. Secretary,

Dharmadam Service co.op.Bank,

P.O.Palayad



O R D E R





This is a complaint filed under section12 of the consumer protection Act for getting an order directing the opposite parties to refund Rs.6750/- with compensation of Rs.2000/-.

As per the averments in the complaint the complainant has taken gas connection from 2nnd opposite party. The distribution of gas connection is a joint effort of all the opposite parties. Complainant paid Rs.5750/- at the time of taking the connection. After sometime the gas distribution became irregular. Because of the interruption in supply of gas the complainant surrendered the equipment before the 2nd opposite party. Security deposit and the connection charges were collected by2nd opposite party on behalf of 1st opposite party hence both the opposite parties are liable to pay the amount. Hence this complaint.

After receiving the complaint, Forum sent notice to both sides. Both parties did not enter appearance but 1st opposite party filed version.

1st opposite party, Consumer fed filed version contending that the complaint is not maintainable since it is hit by section 69 of Kerala co.op.Socieites Act. The difficulties and hurdles that had been faced by the consumer fed have been elaborately discussed in version filed by1st opposite party. It is admitted that at the time of giving gas connection complainant has paid Rs.5750/-. But contended that the claim for refund is not allowable.

On the above pleadings the following issues were framed

1. Whether there is any deficiency on the part of the opposite parties?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the remedy as prayed in the complaint?

3. Relief and cost.

The evidence consists of Exts.A1 marked on the side of the complainant.

Issue Nos. 1 to 3

It is admitted that the complainant has paid Rs.5750/- at the time when the LPG connection was taken. . It can be seen that at first instance cooking gas was regularly supplied. But supply of gas subsequently becomes irregular. It is true that the opposite parties failed to supply gas uninterruptedly. When gas is not available there is no use in keeping the equipments and under such circumstances if complainant happened to surrender the connection he cannot be blamed. Ext.A1 reveals that the complainant has surrendered the equipments to 2nd opposite party.

The complainant asked the opposite parties to refund the amount that he has paid at the time of availing the gas connection but 2nd opposite party did not make payment. It is the duty of the opposite parties to refund the amount at the time of surrendering the equipments. Ext.A1 shows that the complaint has surrendered the cylinders and regulator to 2nd opposite party. Thus there is clear deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. The complainant is entitled to get the amount Rs.5750/- refunded. The issue Nos. 1 to 3 partly found in favour of complainant.

In the result, complaint is allowed directing the opposite parties to refund Rs.5750/-(Rupees Five thousand Seven hundred and fifty only) to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant is allowed to execute the order against the opposite parties under the provisions of consumer protection Act.