AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
MEMBER Panniyodan Balakrishnan, who is the Secretary of the Mattanur Cooperative Rural Bank Limited, has filed this revision petition challenging the order dated 24th of November, 2010 of the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram (for short the State Commission). The petitioner was the opposite party before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kannur (for short the District Forum) in Complaint No. 285 of 2002 filed by the respondent, K. Suresh Babu. The allegation against the petitioner/opposite party in that complaint was that even though the complainant was a member of the opposite party/Bank and further that he was a depositor in the Griha Laxmi Scheme (No.16868) and had deposited an amount of Rs.18,200/- between the period 2nd of April, 2002 to 11th of November, 2002; he was denied the withdrawal of his deposit by the petitioner/opposite party when he approached them for withdrawal of the amount due to some financial difficulty. The complainant had alleged that the petitioner/opposite party refused the withdrawal linking certain arrears pending against his brother-in-law and also on account of a pending recovery certificate against his father. Allegedly, the petitioner/opposite party used abusive language.
THE District Forum on appreciation of the evidence and on consideration of the arguments advanced by the parties, held that the petitioner/opposite party was deficient in service. It, therefore, passed an order directing the opposite party to refund the deposited amount of Rs.18,200/- with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of the complaint. It further awarded a compensation of Rs.25,000/- on account of harassment caused to the complainant and in addition imposed a cost of Rs.1000/- towards the litigation charges. Aggrieved thereupon, the petitioner/opposite party filed an appeal before the State Commission, who vide the order impugned, while maintaining the direction of the District Forum to refund the deposited amount with 12% interest, has, however, toned down the quantum of compensation from Rs.25,000/- to Rs.10,000/- but it has enhanced the cost from Rs.1000/- to Rs.5000/-. Aggrieved once again that this revision petition has been filed by the petitioner/opposite party.
We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/opposite party. The short point on which he seeks to assail the order of the State Commission is that the deposit of Rs.18,200/-, which was lying in deposit in the Griha Laxmi account of the complainant, had been pledged as a security against a loan of Rs.25,000/- which the complainant had obtained and, therefore, even if he had made a request for its withdrawal the same could not have been permitted. This argument has no legs to stand for the simple reason that as per the findings recorded by the District Forum, the opposite party has failed to prove their contention that the Griha Laxmi deposit was ever pledged as a security for the above said loan. Interestingly, in para-9 of their own written version the petitioner/opposite party has averred that the opposite party is always willing and bound to return the deposit amount of the complainant as and when demand in a proper form is made. Thus, there is a contradiction in the stand taken by the opposite party and the benefit, therefore, must go to the complainant. On this issue, the State Commission has recorded its finding as under :- 7. We find that the opposite party/appellant has no case that by August 2005 when the OP was disposed of, the loan was pending. There is also no justification for not properly proving the document as per which the complainant had allegedly furnished the Grihalakshmi deposit as security for the loan. There is serious lapse on the part of the opposite party in not doing so.
ON this backdrop, learned counsel contends that the fora below ought to have taken cognizance of the complainant having approached other foras e.g. the Registrar, Cooperative Societies etc. and should not have entertained the complaint. We only take note of his submissions but reject the same on the opposite partys submission that it is always willing to refund the amount deposited by the complainant if and when approached as per rules. They have not been able to produce any record/statement of account to show that a certain amount against the loan of Rs.25,000/- was due on the date the request was made for the withdrawal of the deposit and in that view of the matter we do not find sufficient ground to interfere with the concurrent finding of the fora below. In any case, the State Commission has partly allowed the petitioners appeal and reduced the compensation from Rs.25,000/- to Rs.10,000/-. The revision petition is devoid of any merit and warrants no interference under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as we do not find any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order passed by the State Commission. The revision petition, accordingly, is dismissed at the stage of admission itself.