D.O.F:20/07/2019

D.O.O:28/02/2022

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD

CC.No.142/2019                                                                                                                                                

Dated this, the 28^th   day of February 2022

PRESENT:

SRI.KRISHNAN.K                        : PRESIDENT

SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M: MEMBER

SMT.BEENA.K.G                            : MEMBER

M.V Kunhambu. Aged 70 years

Meethale Veetil House, Kalichanadukkam                    : Complainant

Thayannur Village, Vellarikund Taluk.

P.O Thayannur, Kasaragod District

(Adv: Vidyadharan. Nambiar)

                                                            And

1. Kasaragod District Co-operative Rubber

    Marketting Society Ltd. No.C 325,

    Head Office, Chittarikkal,

     Rep: by its Secretary, P.O Chittatikkal – 671326       : Opposite Parties

2. Kasaragod District Co-operative Rubber

    Marketing Society Ltd. Branch Office at

    Kalichanadukkam Branch,

    Rep: by its Manager , Thayannur, P.O. Thayannur

   (Adv: Santhosh Thomas)

ORDER

SRI.KRISHNAN.K :PRESIDENT

     The facts of the case is as follows:

     That the complainant has deposited following fixed deposits with Opposite Party

2.      That the complainant sought re-fund of the amount on maturity.  Complainant approached Opposite Party on several occations for the withdrawal of the amount.  But each time Opposite Party oraly represented that there is no amount in the society and requested him to one after save time.  Relief sought in the complaint is to refund the maturity value with interest.  And compensation for negligence and mental agony and cost of the litigation.

3.     The Opposite Party appeared and filed its written version.  Opposite Party contented that CDRF has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and it is not maintainable.  And also that the case is filed after statutory period.  Further society is running in financial loss and thus expressed the inability to meet the liability and therefore complaint is to be dismissed.

4.    Complainant filed chief affidavit, produced documents and marked as Ext A1 to A7 and cross examined as Pw1.  Opposite Party filed chief affidavit and cross examined as Dw1.

5. Following points arise for consideration in the case:-

a) Whether consumer commission has got jurisdiction to entertain complaints by member of co-operative security against and whether consumer complaint is maintainable?

b) Whether there is an deficiency in service or negligence in the service of Opposite Party? Whether complainant is entitled for compensation? If so for what reliefs?

6.     The jurisdiction of consumer Forum created as an extra remedy available to a consumer.  The service which are rendered by the society is by its nature falling within the definition in section 2 (d) (ii) of Consumer Protection Act 1986.

7.     Consumer can have a complaint as regards the services rendered by the society for consideration under the Consumer Protection Act and the co-operative society is a person.  If the complainant suffer from any deficiency, he has a right to file the complaint.

8.     Thus prima facie we are of the view that a member of a co-operative society is consumer and if there is a deficiency in providing any service by co-operative society he can file the complaint under the Consumer Protection Act.  Point No:1 is held in favour to the complainant.

    The Opposite Party did not dispute the fact that they have accepted the FD amount from complainant and assured Ext A1 toA7 FD receipts promising its refund after the period with agreed interest thereon.  Opposite Party has no case that amount covered by FD receipts are already paid to complainant with interest due thereon.  Opposite Party placed that due to financial loss it could not pay the amount in time.

     Financial loss suffer by Opposite Party is not a valid reason to deny refund of FD amount with benefits to complainant.  Complainant is entitled to refund of FD amount with interest thereon as per law and nonpayment in time amounts to unfair trade practice.

     It is therefore found that complainant is entitled to payment of amount covered by the FD amounts shown in Ext A1 to A7 with agreed interest thereon and also compensation for mental agony.  Since complainant suffered financial loss by not getting his money back in time, he suffered mental tension and agony and hence a sum of Rs. 25,000/- is found reasonable compensation under the circumstances of the case.

     In the result complaint is allowed in part.  Opposite Party is directed to pay the complainant amount covered by FD receipts Ext A1 and A7 with agreed interest at the rate of 9.5% from the date of deposit till the date of repayment and also pay Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five thousand only) compensation and Rs. 5000/-(Rupees Five Thousand only) to the cost of litigation within 30 days of the receipts of order.

       Sd/-                                                   Sd/-                                                      Sd/-

MEMBER                                          MEMBER                                          PRESIDENT

Exhibits

A1- Fixed deposit receipt No: 000258

A2- Fixed deposit receipt No: 000260

A3- Fixed deposit receipt No: 000261

A4- Fixed deposit receipt No: 000263

A5- Fixed deposit receipt No: 000264

A6- Fixed deposit receipt No: 000256

A7- Fixed deposit receipt No: 000257

Witness Examined

Pw1- M.V. Kunhambu

Dw1- Babu . P. Mathew

       Sd/-                                                  Sd/-                                                       Sd/-

MEMBER                                          MEMBER                                          PRESIDENT

Forwarded by Order

                                                                                    Senior Superintendent

Ps/