IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Wednesday, the 31st day of May, 2017.
Filed on 12-11-2015
Present
- Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
- Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
- Smt. Jasmine D (Member)
in
C.C.No.331/2015
between
Complainants:- Opposite parties:-
J. Prameela 1. Sree Narayana College Staff
S/O P.K. Murali Co-Operative Society,
Paruthiampally-Sreesailam Cherthala,represented by
Thaickal, Cherthala, Alappuzha its Secretary.
(By Adv.K.S.Shajahan
&Adv.Chandralekha P.T) )
(By Adv. A.Supriya)
2. Smt. Indira
Secretary,
Sree Narayana College Staff,
Co-Operative Society,
Chertha(Residing at Puthenveliyil
Charamangalam, Kanjikkuzhi
Village, Cherthala)
O R D E R
SMT. ELIZABETH GEORGE(PRESIDENT)
The case of the complainant is as follows:-
Believing the words of 2nd opposite party the complainant had deposited an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- on 9/10/13, for an agreed rate of 10.5% per annum with the 1st opposite party. The opposite parties issued receipts for the deposit made by the complainant. When the complainant approached the 2nd opposite party for withdrawal of amount he was turned back stating untenable reasons. The opposite parties also failed to pay the interest to the complainant. Thus an amount of Rs.1,82,403/- with future interest is due from the opposite parties to the complainant. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, the complaint is filed for directing the opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs. 1,82,403/- with interest.
2. Version filed by the 1st opposite party is as follows:-
Complaint is not maintainable. Complainant is not a consumer. Complainant did not approach or demanded the 1st opposite party the alleged amount deposited. 2nd opposite party was a staff and Secretary of the S.N.College Staff Co-Oprative Bank. She has manipulated accounts and taken away huge amount from the bank. The 2nd opposite party had admitted the financial malpractices committed by her and made undertaking to repay the entire amount. She has made part payment as well, but not cleared the entire amount till date. The police have registered case against the said Indira and she was in judicial custody for last so many days. All registers and records relating to the affairs of the society are in the custody of the police and the investigation is in progress. Considering the serious malpractices and misappropriations in the F.D. transactions, the genuineness of the fixed deposits and the receipts issued are to be ascertained. Hence the Meeting of the Board of Directors held on 23/06/2014 has decided to freeze all F.D. transactions of the society for the time being. The society has neither hesitation to repay the F.D amount nor any malafide intention to delay the payment to its creditors. The Bank is facing stringent financial crisis, hence for the time being, is not in a position to repay the amounts to the creditors.
- Version filed by the 2nd opposite party is as follows:-
Complainant is not a consumer and complaint will not come under the purview of Consumer Protection Act. The 2nd opposite party never approached the complainant nor requested to deposit any amount in the 1st opposite party society. The 2nd opposite party is only was a paid secretary appointed by the first opposite party and she had acted only as per the instruction given by her superiors. Regarding the claim raised by complainant in the above O.P is not known to the 2nd opposite party and complainant may be put to strict proof regarding the claim raised by her. The 2nd opposite party is not at all liable to pay any amount personally to the complainant since it is a admitted fact that complainant allegedly deposited the amount to the bank and not to the 2nd opposite party privately.
- The complainant was examined as PW1. The document produced and marked as Ext.A1. No oral or documentary evidence adduced from the part of opposite parties.
5.Points for considerations are:-
1) Whether the complaint is maintainable?
2) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?
3) If so reliefs and costs?
6.Point No.1
One of the contentions of the opposite party is that, the dispute between the complainant and opposite parties clearly comes under the purview of Section 69 of the Kerala Co-Operative Societies Act 1969 and hence this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. As per the decisions reported in 2011 (1) KLT Page 573 “Remedies provided under the Consumer Protection Act are not in derogation of those provided under other laws and the said Act supplements and not supplants jurisdiction of the Civil Court and other statutory authorities and (ii) a Co-Operative Society is a person that could be subject to an action before CDRF by raising a consumer disputes”. By the above decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala the objection that complaint is not maintainable is not sustainable.
7.Point No 2&3
According to the complainant on 9/10/13 believing the words of 2nd opposite party she deposited an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- with the 1st opposite party. Complainant produced the fixed deposit receipt dtd 9/10/13 signed by the President and Secretary of S.N.College Staff co-Operative Bank Ltd. The due date shown in the Ext.A1 receipt is 9/10/14. According to the complainant when she approached the 2nd opposite party for withdrawal of the amount she was turned back stating untenable reasons. The 1st opposite party filed version stating that the 2nd opposite party has manipulated the accounts and taken away huge amount of the bank. 2nd opposite party filed version stating that she was a paid secretary appointed by the 1st opposite party and she had acted as per the instruction given by the superiors. From Ext.A1 it is clear that the opposite parties accepted an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- from the complainant. The opposite parties have not produced any documents to prove that they have returned the amount with interest to the complainant. Apart from that both opposite parties did not produce any evidence to prove their contentions. The failure on the part of the opposite parties to return the amount to the complainant amounts to deficiency in service. Hence we are of opinion that opposite parties 1 and 2 are liable to pay the amount with interest to the complainant.
In the result complaint is allowed.
Opposite parties are directed to pay an amount of Rs.1,50.000/- (Rupees One lakh Fifty Thousand) with 10.5% interest from the date of deposit ie 9/10/13 till realization. Since the primary relief is allowed the further relief for compensation and cost not allowed.
The Order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
Dictated the Confidential Assistant transcribed by her corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 31st day of May, 2017.
Sd/-Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
Sd/- Sri. Antony Xavier(Member)
Sd/- Smt. Jasmine.D (Member)
Appendix
Evidence of the complainant:
PW1 - J.Prameela(Witness)
Ext.A1 -Fixed Deposit Receipt dtd 9/10/13
Evidence of opposite party:
Nil
//True Copy//
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite party/S.F
