State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
1.The Joint Registrar, Co.Operative ... vs A.Manokaran, S/O.Arumugam, Paramathi ... on 4 October, 2013
BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI Present: Thiru J. Jayaram, M.A., M.L. PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER
Thiru S. Sambandam, B.Sc., MEMBER F.A. No. 1037 / 2011 (Against Order in C.C.71/2008 on the file of the DCDRF, Namakkal) Dated this the 04th day of OCTOBER, 2013
1. The Joint Registrar, ] Co-operative Societies, ] Collectorate Campus, ] Namakkal District ] ]
2. The Deputy Registrar of ] Co-operative Societies, ] Tiruchengode Range, ] Velur Road, ] Tiruchengode, ] Namakkal ] Appellants / Opposite Parties ]
3. The Special Officer, ] Anangoor Primary Agricultural ] Cooperative Bank, Anangoor, ] K. Iyampalayam Post, ] Jedarpalayam Via, ] Paramathi Velur Taluk, ] Namakkal District ] Vs A. Manokaran, ] S/o Arumugam, ] Pagampalayam, Anangoor ] K. Iyampalayam Post, ] Jedarpalayam Via, ] Respondent / Complainant Paramathi Velur Taluk, ] Namakkal District ] This appeal coming before us for final hearing on 01.10.2013 and on hearing the arguments of both sides and upon perusing the material records, this Commission made the following Order:
Counsel for Appellants/Opposite Parties: Mr. N. Thiagarajan Counsel for Respondent/Complainant: Mr. N. Manoharan J. JAYARAM, JUDICIAL MEMBER This appeal is filed by the opposite parties against the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Namakkal in C.C.71/2008, dated 22-02-2011, allowing the complaint.
2. The case of the complainant is that he had a SB account with the 3rd opposite party and as on 8-3-2006 the balance in his account was Rs.1,23,203/- and on demand the 3rd opposite party did not allow me to operate the account until an office enquiry was over; This amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence the complaint praying for direction to the opposite parties to pay the amount of Rs.1,23,203/- at credit in his account, along with interest at the rate of 24% and to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- for mental agony and a sum of Rs.10,000/- for loss and hardship, and to pay costs of Rs.5,000/-.
3. According to the opposite parties, there is no dispute regarding the balance amount in the complainants SB account, but the Secretary of the 3rd opposite party bank and some staff indulged in malpractices and misappropriation and so they could not allow the complainant to operate his account. This amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
4. The District Forum allowed the complaint with costs holding that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Aggrieved by this impugned order, the opposite parties have preferred this appeal.
5. It is pertinent to note that the appellants / opposite parties have admitted the averments in the complaint and according to them, the respondent / complainant had a balance of Rs.1,23,203/-, after withdrawal of Rs.1,00,000/- by the complainant as on 8-3-2006, and subsequently the 3rd opposite party did not permit the complainant to withdraw money from his account under the pretext of pending enquiry regarding the malpractices and misappropriation of money by the former Secretary of the bank and some staff. This amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties 1 to 3.
6. The District Forum allowed the complaint holding that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and has passed an order directing the opposite parties to pay the sum of Rs.1,23,203/- with interest @ 12 % p.a. from 8-3-2006 till the date of payment and to pay a sum of Rs.4,000/- towards compensation for mental agony with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. till the date of the order and to pay costs of Rs.1,500/-.
7. The opposite parties counsel argued urging that the opposite parties 1&2 are not liable for deficiency in service and that interest is excessive and that the compensation awarded for mental agony may not be awarded. It is relevant to note that the opposite parties 1&2 are the controlling and supervising authorities of the 3rd opposite party. Therefore we hold that opposite parties 1 to 3 are liable jointly and severally.
8. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we feel that interest on Rs.1,23,203/- at the rate of 12% p.a. is on the higher side and we are inclined to reduce the rate of interest to 9% p.a. Further, we feel that compensation of Rs.4,000/- towards mental agony is unwarranted; and that the litigation costs is also on the higher side and we are inclined to reduce it to Rs.1,000/- and the order of the District Forum has to be modified accordingly.
9. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part modifying the order of the District Forum by setting aside the order and directing the appellants / opposite parties 1 to 3 to pay jointly and severally a sum of Rs.1,23,203/- (Rupees One Lac Twenty Three Thousand Two Hundred and Three only) with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from 8-3-2006 till realization, and to pay costs of Rs.1,000/-. No order as to costs in the appeal.
S. SAMBANDAM J. JAYARAM MEMBER PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER