IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOLLAM

                                                       C.C.No. 87/2021

PRESENT

SMT. S.K.SREELA, B.A.L, LL.B, PRESIDENT

SRI.  STANLY HAROLD, B.A.LL.B, MEMBER

                                                          ORDER DATED:   29.06.2024

BETWEEN

Thankamma Joy, 79 years,

W/o Dr.Joy Joseph, Mullasseril Salem Bhavan,

Eravichira East, Sooranadu P.O.,

Kollam 690592, Rep.by his Power of Attorney holder

Sri.Manoj K., Kalluvila Veedu,

Cheruvakkal, Ayoor, Kollam.                                                :         Complainant

(By Adv.R.Vimal Nath)

AND

1.   M/s.Mary Rani Popular Nidhi Ltd.,

Door No.XIII/526, Popular Tower Annexe,

Vakayar P.O., Pathanamthitta

Rep.by its Directors

2.   Riya Ann Thomas,

Director, M/s.Mary Rani Popular Nidhi Ltd.,

Door No.XIII/526, Popular Tower Annexe

Vakayar P.O., Pathanamthitta,

Residing at Indyakattil House, Vakayar P.O., Konni.

3.   Reba Mary Thomas, Director,

M/s.Mary Rani Popular Nidhi Ltd.,

Door No.XIII/526, Popular Tower,

Annexe, Vakayar P.O., Pathanamthitta

Residing at Indyakattil House, Vakayar P.O., Konni.

4.  Rinu Mariyam Thomas, Director,

M/s.Mary Rania Popular Nidhi Ltd.,

Door No.XIII/526, Popular Tower,

Annexe, Vakayar P.O., Pathanamthitta

Residing at Indyakattil House, Vakayar P.O., Konni.

5.   Mr.Kunjumon, Manager,

M/s.Mary Rani Popular Nidhi Ltd.,

Chakkuvally Branch, Kollam.:Opposite Parties

ORDER

Stanly Harold, B.A.LLB, Member

          This complaint is filed U/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019.   

The brief facts of the complaint are as follows:-

The signatory to this complaint is the Power of Attorney holder of the complainant and is authorized to file this complaint under Power of Attorney dated 06.01.2021.  The 1^st opposite party is a company said to be incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act.  The opposite parties 2 to 4 are the directors of the company.  The 5^th opposite party is the manager of the Chakkuvally branch.  The opposite parties 2 to 5 are the persons responsible for the conduct of the business of the 1^st opposite party.  The opposite parties 2 to 5, through the media and other modes of advertisements, were representing to the general public, that they are duly authorized to accept deposits also in addition to their business of lending, gold loans etc.  They were also representing that the deposits, irrespective of their dates of maturity, could be encashed anytime.  In view of the comparatively higher rates of interest promised, the complainant, like thousands of others across the country, fell victims.  As a matter of fact the 5^th opposite party was personally canvassing deposits and the complainant blindly believed him.  The complainant is now aged 79 and had made two deposits with the 1^st opposite party’s branch at Chakkuvally.  As stated above, the complainant made the following deposits with the Chakkuvally Branch.

The receipts mentioned above were renewals of deposits made earlier and in view of trust reposed on the opposite parties, the complainant allowed such renewals.  The complainant and her husband are mostly on travel in connection with their missionary activities and on 08.12.2020 they returned to India.  While they were abroad, the complainant got a reliable information that the opposite parties and their other group of concerns like Popular Financiers, Popular Traders etc. committed massive misappropriation of the depositor’s money dishonestly appropriated the same.  About 30000 depositors were looted through about 258 branches of the group.  The depositors are understood to have lost about 1600 crores and opposite parties 2, 3 & 4 along with many others were arrested while in hiding or attempting to fly away from India.

On arrival of the complainant on 08.12.2020, she was shocked to see that the branch was remaining closed for ever or forced to close under statutory orders.  On contacting the 5^th opposite party, on 10.12.2020, the complainant got reliable information that the deposits are not going to be honoured by the opposite parties.  It is further pleaded that the deposits were assured to be encashable anytime before the maturity dates, with a slight reduction in interest.  That the complainant lost a total amount of Rs.1600000/- on the 2 deposits, by way of principal alone.  The above stated amounts carry interest at agreed rates from the date of the respective deposits.  That the entire fiasco occurred due to deliberate actions and misfeasance/malfeasance committed by the opposite parties 2 to 5 and hence they are personally liable.  It is further pleaded by the complainant that she had duly complained to the jurisdictional police officers and it is understood that crimes are registered and being investigated.  The acts of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.  Complainant is entitled to get back the sum of Rs.1600000/- with interest as on date as shown in the statement of account mentioned herein below and compensation.  Hence the complaint.

Notice was issued to the opposite parties and the notice returned unserved with an endorsement left.  Thereafter paper publication was effected.  Despite the same, since the opposite parties failed to appear before the Commission, they were set exparte.  The complainant filed chief affidavit in lieu of chief examination and reiterated the averments in the complaint and got marked Exts.P1 to P3 documents.  Ext.P1 is the Power of Attorney dated 06.01.2021. Ext.P2 is the fixed deposit receipt issued from Mary Rani Popular Nidhi Ltd. dated 05.12.2019  for Rs.1,00,000/-.  Ext.P3 is the fixed deposit receipt issued from Mary Rani Popular Nidhi Ltd. dated 08.03.2019  for Rs.1500000/-. 

Based on the uncontroverted testimony of the complainant and the supporting documents, Ext.P1 to P3, it can be safely concluded that the complainant presented sufficient evidence to support their case and justify the relief they are seeking.

The available materials on record indicate that the complainant made repeated requests to the opposite parties for the withdrawal of their deposits, but the opposite parties refused to comply by withholding both the interest and principal amount. This clear and deliberate withholding of funds by the opposite parties amounts to illegal enrichment and demonstrates a breach of their contractual obligations. This indicates a deficiency in service and an unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties.

This case revolves around the complainant engaging the services of the opposite parties in exchange for payment. However, the opposite parties deliberately, unlawfully, and arbitrarily failed to fulfill their obligations and provide the agreed-upon service to the complainant. The complainant had duly complained to the jurisdictional police officers and it is understood that crimes are registered and being investigated. The opposite parties explicitly agreed to promptly pay interest on the fixed deposit amount on a monthly basis, as well as repay the fixed deposit amount upon maturity or upon the complainant’s request. Nevertheless, the opposite parties failed to honor their commitments, thereby demonstrating clear deficiency in their service to the complainant.  Furthermore, the opposite parties' refusal to return the complainant’s funds represents an illegal act of withholding money for their own illicit enrichment. Such actions further support the complainant’s claims of contractual violation, deficiency in service, and unfair trade practices. Therefore, it is evident that the opposite parties' conduct in this case demonstrates clear instances of deficiency in service, contractual violation, and unfair trade practices. The complainant is justified in seeking redress for the damages and losses incurred as a result of the opposite parties' actions.

Therefore, based on the evidence presented, it can be concluded that the complainant had established her case and is entitled to the relief sought.                     

In the result the complaint is allowed.   The opposite parties 1 to 4 are directed to  pay  to the complainant an amount of Rs.100000/- with 12% interest from 05.12.2019  and Rs.1500000/- with 12% interest from 08.03.2019, till the date of realization.  The opposite parties 1 to 5 are directed to pay Rs.10,000/- towards compensation and Rs.5,000/- costs of the proceedings. The opposite parties are jointly and severally directed to comply with the above directions within 45 days from the date of receipt of the order failing which the complainant can initiate execution proceedings.    

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant  Smt. Minimol S. transcribed and typed by her corrected by me and pronounced in the  Open Commission this the 29^th day of  June 2024.

Sd/-

STANLY HAROLD

MEMBER

Sd/-

S.K.SREELA

PRESIDENT

Forwarded/by Order                                         

                            Senior superintendent

INDEX

Witnesses Examined for the Complainant:-Nil

Documents marked for the  complainant

Ext.P1              : Power of Attorney dated 06.01.2021

Ext.P2              : Fixed deposit receipt issued from Mary Rani Popular Nidhi Ltd.

                         dated 05.12.2019  for Rs.1,00,000/-. 

Ext.P3              :Fixed deposit receipt issued from Mary Rani Popular Nidhi Ltd.

                        dated 08.03.2019  for Rs.1500000/-. 

Witnesses Examined for the opposite parties:-Nil

Documents marked for opposite parties:-Nil                                                                       

                      Sd/-                          

PRESIDENT