National Consumer Disputes Redressal
M/S. Cheruvallil Investments & 2 Ors. vs District Collector, & 2 Ors. on 25 May, 2017
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 664 OF 2017 (Against the Order dated 05/08/2016 in Appeal No. 624/2013 of the State Commission Kerala) 1. M/S. CHERUVALLIL INVESTMENTS & 2 ORS. REP. BY MANAGING PARTNER, S. RAJEEV,THOTTATHIL BUILDING, MARAMON P.O., DISTRICT-PATHANAMTHITTA KERALA 2. S. RAJEEV, MANAGING PARTNER, M/S. CHERUVALLIL INVESTMENTS, R/O. S. RAJEEV, CHERUVALLIL HOUSE, MARAMON P.O., DISTRICT-PATHANAMTHITTA KERALA-689549 3. MRS. SUJA RAJEEV PARTNER, M/S. CHERUVALLIL INVESTMENTS,R/O. S. RAJEEV, CHERUVALLIL HOUSE, MARAMON P.O., DISTRICT-PATHANAMTHITTA KERALA-689549 ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, & 2 ORS. PATHANAMTITTA, KERALA 2. PREETHA ELSA SAM, THOTTATHIL HOUSE, MARAMON P.O.,
DISTRICT-PATHANAMTHITTA KERALA 3. PREETHY MERRY SAM, REP. BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, MATHEW ABRAHAM, PANDIYALAKAL HOUSE, VANCHITRA, KOZHENCHERRY, DISTRICT-PATHANAMTHITTA KERALA 4. . . . . 5. . . . ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. DR. B.C. GUPTA,PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MR. DR. S.M. KANTIKAR,MEMBER
For the Petitioner : For the Respondent :
Dated : 25 May 2017 ORDER
APPEARED AT THE TIME OF ARGUMENTS
For the Petitioners
:
Mr. Jose Abraham, Advocate
PRONOUNCED ON: 25th May 2017
ORDER
PER DR. B.C. GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER These two revision petitions have been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the impugned order dated 05.08.2016, passed by the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram (hereinafter referred to as "the State Commission") in Appeals No. 623/2013 and 624/2013, filed by the present petitioners, vide which, while dismissing the two appeals, the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Pathanamthitta in consumer complaints no. 172/2012 and 173/2012 filed by the present respondent no. 2, allowing the said complaints, was upheld.
2. The consumer complaint, C.C. No. 172/2012 has been filed by Preetha Elsa Sam represented by the power of attorney holder Matthew Abraham against the petitioners/opposite parties (OPs), saying that she had deposited a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs on 23.01.2008 for a period of 48 months with the OP firm, for which an interest @ 15% per annum was to be given to the complainant. A Fixed Deposit Receipt (FDR) No. 794 was also issued, covering the period from 23.01.2008 to 23.01.2012. After the date of maturity i.e. 23.01.2012 was reached, the OPs failed to repay the fixed deposit alongwith interest to the complainants. A legal notice was issued to the petitioners/OPs for repayment of the amount, but to no effect. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant filed the consumer complaint in question, seeking payment of the matured fixed deposit amount of Rs. 8 lakhs alongwith a further 15% interest from the date of maturity i.e. 23.01.2012 till realisation and also to provide compensation of Rs. 10,000/- for mental agony and Rs. 5,000/- as cost of litigation.
3. In the second complaint, C.C. No. 173/2012, filed by the complaints Preetha Elsa Sam and Preethy Merry Sam through their attorney holder Matthew Abraham, it was stated that another sum of Rs. 5 lakhs was deposited by the complainant with the said firm on the same terms and conditions, but they failed to repay the maturity amount. In the said consumer complaint as well, same relief has been prayed for.
4. The District Forum decided the two complaints vide their order dated 25.02.2013 and after considering the averments of the parties, directed the OPs to return the fixed deposit amounts in both the cases and its agreed rate of interest from the date of deposit alongwith compensation of Rs. 5,000/- each for mental agony and Rs. 1,000/- each in both the cases within 15 days from the receipt of the orders, failing which, the complainant was allowed to realise the whole amount with 12% interest till realisation. Being aggrieved against the order of the District Forum, the petitioners/OPs challenged the same by way of two appeals no. 623/2013 and 624/2013 before the State Commission. The State Commission rejected both the appeals with cost of Rs. 5,000/- in each case, saying that there was no merit in the same. Being aggrieved against the impugned order passed by the State Commission, the petitioners/OPs are before this Commission by way of the present two Revision Petitions.
5. At the time of admission hearing, it was pleaded by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the claim of the complainants was based on forged documents. In fact, the father of the complainants had advanced certain amount to the petitioners/OPs for the purpose of running some business in the rented premises of the father of the complainants. The said advance had been given, based on certain documents like promissory notes, signed blank cheques and signed blank papers. The petitioners/OPs had returned the amount received from the father of the complainants, but the documents in question were not returned by the father of the complainants. In their reply filed before the District Forum in response to the consumer complaints, the petitioners/OPs had explained the position in detail and stated that they had returned substantial amount to the father of the complainant alongwith exorbitant interest. The claim of the complainant was thus based on forged documents. The consumer complaint in question should, therefore, have been dismissed by the consumer fora below.
6. We have examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before us.
7. The main issue for consideration in these matters is whether the amount of Rs. 5 lakhs in each case was kept as fixed deposit by the complainants or not. The petitioners/OPs have taken the plea that the claim of the complainants was based on forged documents. They have stated that certain money was advanced to them by the father of the complainants and at that time, the petitioners/OPs had provided certain documents to the complainant's father. Although the money so taken by the petitioners/OPs was returned to the complainant's father, the documents were not taken back from him. The complainants were, therefore, trying to misuse those documents and raised claim against them. This contention of the petitioners/OPs, however, cannot be believed, in view of the position brought out by the consumer fora below, where they observed that the petitioners/OPs had not filed any complaint anywhere, saying that the FD receipts shown by the complainants were forged. The petitioners could have filed appropriate civil/criminal proceedings, if they felt that the documents shown by the complainants were fake/forged. Further the State Commission has referred to the deposition of the petitioner/OP S. Sanjeev in his cross-examination where he admitted his signatures on the fixed deposit receipts and also the stamp and seal of his establishment on the same. These facts do not leave even an iota of doubt that the complainants had deposited money with the petitioners/OPs, who had failed to return the money on maturity.
8. Based on the discussion above, we do not find any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the orders passed by the consumer fora below. The instant revision petitions are, therefore, ordered to be dismissed in limine and the orders passed by the consumer fora below upheld. There shall be no order as to costs.
...................... DR. B.C. GUPTA PRESIDING MEMBER ...................... DR. S.M. KANTIKAR MEMBER