Present :      Sri. C.T. Sabu, President

                                                Smt. Sreeja. S., Member

                                                Sri. Ram Mohan R., Member

30^th day of November 2022

CC 225/18 filed on 03/05/18

Complainant         :         Balakrishnan, S/o Kodakkattil Sankaran,

                                      Aattore Desom, Pottore Village, Thrissur.   

                                      (By Advs. Soly Joseph & Honey C.A., Thrissur)

Opposite Parties    :   1)  Chalakkudy Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd.

                                      No.R.1087, Head Office, South Chalakkudy, Thrissur.

                                      Rep. by Secretary.

                                  2) K.N. Sasidharan, S/o Narayanan,

                                      Kalappurakkal House, Elinjipra, P.O. Chalakkudy,

                                      Thrissur.

                                 3)  Sabu Joseph, S/o Joseph, Veliyath House,

                                      P.O. Koratty, Chalakkudy, Thrissur.

                                 4)  K.K. Balan, S/o Kochakkan, Kattuparambil House,

                                      Koodapuzha, P.O. Chalakkudy, Thrissur.

                                 5)  K.G. Joseph, S/o George, Kallumpurath House,

                                      West Chalakkudy, P.O., Thrissur.

                                 6)  Wilson K.D., S/o Devassykkutty, Puthussery Kattalan

                                      House, P.O. Chalakkudy, Thrissur.

                                 7)  Rini Babu, W/o K.J. Babu, Arangassery Hosue,

                                      Chalakkudy P.O., Thrissur.

                                 8)  K.K. Prakasan, S/o Kumaran, Kadungamattom House, 

                                      Chowka, Elinjipra, P.O. Chalakkudy, Thrissur.

                                 9)  Buju M.V., S/o Varghese, Maliyekkal House,

                                      Annamanada P.O., Chalakkudy, Thrissur.

                                10) Babu M.J., S/o Joseph, Mattekkadan House,

                                      Kadukutty P.O., Chalakkudy, Thrissur.

                                 11) Valsala P.S., Palliyil House, Kandukuzhypadam,

                                      Kuttichira P.O., Chalakkudy, Thrissur.

                                      (OP 1,2,4,5,6,7,8,10 & 11 By Adv. Smitha Bharathan,

                                       Thrissur.

                                       OP 3^rd & 9^th Ex-parte)

F I N A L  O R D E R

By Sri. Ram Mohan R, Member :

1. The complaint in brief, as averred :

          The complaint is filed under section 12(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant  states to have on 09/01/06 deposited a total sum of Rs.1,50,000/- with the 1^st opposite party bank, in three fixed deposit each worth Rs.50,000/- vide FD Numbers 3543, 3544 & 3545. Likewise, he, on 20/04/06 deposited a total sum of Rs.2,00,000/- with the 1^st opposite party bank, in five fixed deposits each worth Rs.40,000/-, vide FD No. 4343, 4344, 4345, 4346 & 4347. The 2^nd opposite party is the President of the 1^st opposite party bank whereas, the 3^rd to the 11^th opposite parties are Members of its Board of Directors. Both sets of fixed deposits were initially invested for a period of three years, whereas the initial maturity dates of the former and the latter sets of fixed deposits were 09/01/09 and 20/04/09 respectively. Statedly both the sets of fixed deposits were thereafter periodically renewed. The complainant affirms to have regularly received the assured interest till 09/05/16 for the former sets of fixed deposits and till 20/05/16 for the latter sets of fixed deposits. Thereafter, the opposite parties defaulted the payment of interest and moreover have not cared to return the fixed deposits to the complainant, despite his several requests to that effect. The complainant’s lawyer notice to the opposite parties hardly elicited any fruitful remedy to his grievances. Hence the complaint. The complainant alleges deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and pray for an order directing the opposite parties to refund the deposits with interest, apart from other reliefs of compensation and costs.

2) NOTICE :

          Though being duly noticed, the 3^rd & the 9^th opposite parties have not cared to enter appearance before the Commission. Accordingly proceedings against the 3^rd & the 9^th opposite parties were set ex-parte.

          Version in respect of the opposite parties 1,2,6,7,8,10 & 11 is seen filed.

          3) Version of  the opposite parties 1,2,6,7,8,10 & 11 (Contesting Opposite Parties) :

          The fixed deposits claimed to have been made by the complainant are not disputed by the opposite parties. They also admit that they could not return the fixed deposits to the complainant due to the financial crunch the 1^st opposite party bank underwent, which is attributed to the maladministration of the then directors of the 1^st opposite party bank. A Vigilance case against the then directors of the bank is also stated to exist. The opposite parties also affirm to return the fixed deposits with interest to the complainant, upon the court proceedings attaining finality.

          4) Evidence :

          The complainant produced documental evidence that had been marked Exts. P1 to P5, apart from affidavit and notes of argument. The contesting opposite parties produced documental evidence that had been marked Exts. R1 & R2, apart, from version, affidavit and notes of arguments.

          5) Deliberation of evidence and facts of the case :

          The Commission has very carefully examined the facts and evidence of the case. Ext. P1 is copy of the lawyer notice dtd. 24/02/18 issued to the General Manager of the 1^st opposite party Bank. Ext. P2 is the Postal Acknowledgement card. Ext. P3 is reply notice. Ext. P4 series comprise 3 deposit receipts numbered 3543, 3544 & 3545 dtd. 09/01/2006 issued by the 1^st opposite party bank in favour of the complainant, each deposit worth Rs.50,000/-. Ext. P5 series comprise 5 deposit receipts numbered 4343, 4344, 4345, 4346 & 4347 dtd.20/04/06  issued by the 1^st opposite party bank in favour of the complainant, each deposit worth Rs.40,000/-

          Ext. R1 is the copy of an FIR dtd. 25/05/07 of the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau, Thrissur. Ext. R2 is a copy of  proceedings dtd. 16/11/07 of the District Co-operative Societies Joint Registrar (General), Thrissur.

          6) Points of deliberation :

          (i)      Whether the act of the opposite parties is tantamount to unfair trade

                   practice or whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of

                   the  opposite parties ? Also whether the complainant is entitled to

                   refund of the deposits he made ?

          (ii)     Whether the complainant is entitled to receive any compensation

                   from the opposite parties ? If so, its quantum ?

          (iv)    Costs ?

          7) Point No.(i)

          Ext. P4 series & Ext. P5 series of receipts evidence the complainant’s having deposited with the 1^st opposite party bank a total sum of Rs.3,50,000/-. The appearing opposite parties admit this fact. The opposite parties also admit their default in payment of interest and also their failure to return the deposit amount upon maturity. They affirm that the said defaults and failure on their part are attributed to the maladministration of the then directors of the bank and the consequent financial crunch the 1^st opposite party bank underwent. But they express readiness to return the complainant’s deposits along with interest upon completion of the court proceedings stated to have been underway, in this regard. Ext. R1 & R2 documents are revelatory of the varied defrauding and swindling crimes committed by the then responsible persons of the 1^st opposite party bank, including misappropriation and misuse of money, breach of trust, deceit, abuse of office etc. amongst others. The Ext. R2 document from the Joint Registrar (General) Thrissur, District Co-operative Societies further affirms their detection of the 1^st opposite party’s having deceived its depositors by not returning to them the fixed deposits received by it, which in turn unequivocally proves the malafide intent of the then persons responsible for the conduct of business of the 1^st opposite party bank. Ext. R2 document further reveals their having detected the very use of the term ‘bank’ in the name of the 1^st opposite party, illegal. Ext. R2 documents further reveal that the then directors of the 1^st opposite party were under judicial custody. The contesting opposite parties desire to settle the complainant’s claim on a later date, upon finality of the court proceedings. This stance adopted by the contesting opposite parties is certainly an untenable and unlawful one, as the complainant cannot be faulted for the furtherance of the said court proceedings. Collecting deposits from people, offering attractive interest rates and subsequently misappropriating, embezzling and abusing such funds and eventually evading from walking the promises given, are certainly unfair trade practices which in turn result in deficiency in service, as well. The 1^st opposite party’s act of having not promptly paid the promised interest and not returned the deposits on maturity to the complainant constitutes deficiency in service on its part, which at the same time is unfair trade practice, as well. The contesting opposite parties who admit receipt of the deposits from the complainant, owe the responsibility to, without delay, return to him the deposits he made. The complainant who had stateldy been requesting return of the fixed deposits, but in vain, since 2017, cannot be urged to wait any further for realisation of his legitimate claim, particularly so, as the complainant is statedly more than 86 years of age as of now. The contesting opposite parties’ present act of so urging the complainant to wait further, is evidently unreasonable, arbitrary and illogical and it also is tantamount to another sort of unfair trade practice on their part and results in deficiency in service also on their part. All the opposite parties are duty bound to, at once, return the deposits to the complainant.

          8) Point No.(ii) & (iii) :

          Dreaming of accomplishing their future plans, poor investors get easily allured by the tall and hollow promises of high interest rates offered by erring financial establishments. The wrong doings of such defrauders render the deceived investors bewildered, shocked and helpless. In the instant case, apart from not paying the assured interest, the opposite parties not only declined timely refund of deposits but attempt to seek further time for clearing their liabilities with the complainant. The opposite parties’ misdeeds have certainly inflicted financial loss, agony and hardship – both mental and physical on the complainant. The opposite parties have necessarily to compensate the complainant. We are of the considered view that the complainant is entitled to receive from the opposite parties a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for the financial loss he sustained, a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards compensation for the agony and hardship - both mental and physical, he underwent and a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards costs.

          In the result, the complaint is allowed and the opposite parties are jointly and severally directed to

1. refund to the complainant the total amount of deposits received from him i.e. Rs.3,50,000/- (Rupees Three lakh fifty thousand only),
2. pay the complainant a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only), towards compensation for the financial loss he sustained,
3. pay the complainant a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five thousand only) towards the compensation for the agony and hardship he underwent and
4. pay the complainant a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) towards costs,

all with 9% interest p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till the date of realisation. The opposite parties shall comply with the above direction within 30 days of receipt of a copy of this order.

          Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Commission this the 30^th day of November 2022.

   Sd/-                                              Sd/-                                       Sd/-                  

Sreeja S.                                   Ram Mohan R                         C. T. Sabu

Member                                          Member                                      President

                                                    Appendix

Complainant’s Exhibits :

Ext. P1 copy of the lawyer notice dtd. 24/02/18 issued to the General Manager

             of the 1^st opposite party Bank.

Ext. P2 Postal Acknowledgement card.

Ext. P3 reply notice.

Ext. P4 series comprise 3 deposit receipts numbered 3543, 3544 & 3545

             dtd. 09/01/2006 issued by the 1^st opposite party bank in favour of the 

             complainant, each deposit worth Rs.50,000/-.

Ext. P5 series comprise 5 deposit receipts numbered 4343, 4344, 4345, 4346 &

             4347 dtd.20/04/06 issued by the 1^st opposite party bank in favour of the

             complainant, each deposit worth Rs.40,000/-.

1,2,6,7,8,10 & 11 Opposite Parties’ Exhibits :

Ext. R1 copy of a FIR dtd. 25/05/07 of the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption

             Bureau, Thrissur.

Ext. R2 copy of a proceedings dtd. 16/11/07 of the District Co-operative

             Societies Joint Registrar (General), Thrissur.

                                                                                                    Id/-                                                                                                                   Member