TRICHUR INTERLINK NETWORK (P) LTD. Vs. P.V.NALINI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal prefers from the order passed by the CDFR, Thrissur in OP No. 279/99 dated 28/9/99. The appellants are the opposite parties in the OP mentioned above. The Forum below passed a common order in three OPs in one judgment.

(2.) THE brief of the case is that the complainant deposited Rs. 50,000/ - on 1/9/97 with the 1st opposite party for an interest at the rate of 24% per annum for a period of 6 months. The 1st opposite party assured the complainant that she can withdraw the deposit any time and she will get the interest at the rate of 24% which can be received in every month. The opposite parties paid interest till October 1997. The complainant alleged that the opposite parties have never paid the interest nor paid the amount. The complainant thereafter, alleged deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The complainant prays to direct the opposite parties to return Rs. 5,000/ - at the rate of 24% from 1.9.1997 to pay Rs. 1,00,000 as compensation for harassment and inconvenience and Rs. 5,000/ - as cost.

(3.) THE notice of the complaint was served on the opposite parties and they appeared and filed one and the same written objection. The opposite parties deny that the complainant had deposited the said amount with the 1st opposite party for the interest at the rate of 25% per annum. They alleged that the complainant is a close relative of one of the directors of the 1st opposite party company. Sri. P. Vishnu Namboodiri and the former managing director are at logger heads with the present managing director Dr.V.K. Gopinathan due to the dispute regarding the directorship and the managing directorship of the 1st opposite party/company Dr. V.K. Gopinathan took charge as the managing director of the 1st opposite party/company on 2/2/98 replacing the former managing director Sri. Vishnu Namboodiri who is working against Dr. V.K. Gopinathan in the managing director the 1st opposite party/company. Because of the rivalry of Mr. P. Vishnu Namboodiri and former managing director colluded and fabricated the fixed deposit receipts mentioned in the complaint and that was pressed into service for making unlawful gain from the opposite parties. These opposite parties neither assured 24% interest nor received the amount mentioned in the complaint from the complainant. The attempt that they have never paid the amount to the complainants since the complaints are not entitled to the amount. There is no question of deficiency in service according to the opposite parties, the lawyer notice mentioned in the complaint received by the 2nd opposite party immediately contacted Mr. Vishnu Namboodiri hence to some extent they settled the directorship issue and Sri P. Vishnu Namoodiri and his wife Nalini V. Namboodiri assured the 2nd opposite party that they will not proceed further with the lawyer notice. On believing the assurance, theses opposite parties did not reply. The 1st opposite party/company is keeping proper acconts. The amounts mentioned in the deposit receipts never find a place in those accounts books. The transaction mentioned in the complainants are such illegal and prohibited under the Indian Companies Act, 1956. The prayer of the opposite parties is the complaint thereafter may be dismissed with cost of the opposite parties. The Forum below tried the Ops together jointly and pronounced common judgment. For the part of petitioner Ext. P1 to P7 were marked and for the part of the respondents Ext. R1 to R5 were marked. The Form below found that the opposite parties would not establish the allegation raised in the version by placing the relevant materials. Therefore the deficiency of service was found by the Forum and ordered the opposite parties to return Rs. 50,000/ - to the complainant with 24% interest from 1/9/97 till realization and also to pay Rs. 750 as to the cost of the complainant from the date of the receipt of this order.