AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
THE opposite party in C.O.P. No. 233 of 1998 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Coimbatore, is the appellant herein.
THE respondent/complainant filed the complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, on the following allegations: It deposited an amount of Rs. 50,000 as per the chit funds rules with the opposite party on 15.4.1996 for 26 months under fixed deposit No. 402 for the chit conducted by them for Rs. 50,000. On its maturity, namely, dated 15.6.1998, the amount due was at Rs. 68,373. THE chit conducted by the complainant was terminated on 21.3.1998. After completion of the said chit, the Registrar of Chits also issued a certificate of refund of the fixed deposit on 16.6.1998. In spite of various demands and legal notice, the opposite party did not repay the same. On the other hand, the opposite party gave a reply on 10.8.1998 contending that their earlier Secretary had misappropriated some amounts and fixed deposit made by the complainant had not been registered in the opposite party''s account book. THE complainant paid the amount to the opposite party and not the Secretary. THE refusal by the opposite party to pay the amount amounted to deficiency in service causing mental agony and business loss. THE complainant should be refunded Rs. 68,373 with subsequent interest at the rate of 18% per annum from 15.6.1998 till realization and Rs. 15,000 towards compensation for mental agony and for business loss. The opposite party resisted the complaint as follows: The Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction as the complainant had not hired any service from the opposite party. The opposite party is only a co-operative society Bank for which there is a separate Tribunal constituted under the Co-operative Societies Act. The opposite party has no personal knowledge about the deposit made by the complainant. As misappropriation had been committed by the then Secretary of the opposite party, on the complaint given by the Special Officer, an inquiry was being conducted as per Section 81 of the Co-operative Societies Act and at the time of filing the version, the inquiry was still pending. If at all, the complainant had any grievances, it ought to have moved the Deputy Secretary of Co-operative Societies for proper adjudication and redressal.
On the above pleadings, the District Forum framed the following points for determination: Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party? If so, what are the reliefs the complainant is entitled to from the opposite party?
ON the side of the complainant Exs. A1 to Ex. A6 were marked and on the side of the opposite party Ex. B1 to Ex. B3 were marked. There was no oral evidence let in. The District Forum based on the materials placed on record held that the deposit by the complainant with the opposite party was evidenced by Ex. A1 deposit receipt duly signed by the Secretary of the Bank, that if he misappropriated the amount, the bank had to proceed against him and collect the same that it was an internal matter between the bank and its Secretary and in such circumstances, it was for the opposite party to pay the amount due under the deposit receipt. It further held that the Consumer Forum had jurisdiction to entertain the dispute. So holding by order dated 23.8.2000, the District Froum directed the opposite party to pay the complainant Rs. 68,373 with 15% interest from 15.6.1998 till payment on a sum of Rs. 50,000, a sum of Rs. 5,000 and Rs. 1,000 as compensation for mental agony and business loss and cost respectively within two months from the date of the order.
IT is as against that, the present appeal has been filed. Though several points have been raised in the memorandum of grounds, in our view, they do not really advance the case of the opposite party. Once it is found that the complainant had made the deposit which was evidenced by a deposit receipt, whatever happened in the co-operative society bank where the deposit had been made was immaterial so far as the complainant was concerned. It is not disputed that the complainant had deposited the amount. The deposit receipt had been duly signed by the then Secretary. Might be the Secretary had misappropriated the amounts from the bank, but that does not absolve the bank from honouring its liabilities. It is up to the bank to take proceedings against the Secretary for alleged defalcation, but that cannot be a ground for denying the complainant of its just claim. Inasmuch as the opposite party had failed in its duty and service towards the complainant by not honouring the fixed deposit on maturity, we have to hold that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and the District Forum was right in granting relief to the complainant. However, we are obliged to reduce the rate of interest from 15% to 12%.
CONSEQUENTLY, while holding that the appeal does not have merits and deserves to be dismissed, we modify the order of the District Forum and hold that instead of 15% interest on Rs. 50,000, the complainant would be entitled to 12%. In other respects, the order of the District Forum will stand confirmed. No costs. Appeal dismissed.