KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

APPEAL No. 402/2009

JUDGMENT DATED:  08-04-2010

PRESENT:

SHRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN                    : JUDICIAL  MEMBER

APPELLANT

Sree Narayana Dharma Paripalana Yogam

(S.N.D.P.Yogam), Kollam –1. rep. by its General Secretary, V.K.Natesan.

(Rep. by Adv. Sri. R Bahuleyan & Sri. Narayan. R)

                                    Vs

RESPONDENTS

1.      Smt. Smithamol.S.,

Chakkanadu, Aryad South Village,

Alappuzha.

(Santhalayam, Avalookunnu.P.O., Alappuzha).

2.      S.N.D.P.Yogam, Branch No.363,

Kakkazham, Neerkunnam.P.O., T.D.M.C.,

Alappuzha-5.

3.      Babu

          President, S.N.D.P. Yogam

          Branch No. 363, Kakkazham,

          Neerkunnam P.O., T.D.M.C., Alappuzha-5.

4.      Bhaskaran

          Secretary, S.N.D.P. Yogam

          Branch No. 363, Kakkazham,

          Neerkunnam P.O., T.D.M.C., Alappuzha-5.

( R1. rep. by Adv. Sri. S.S. Kalkura & others)

JUDGMENT

SHRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL  MEMBER

The appellant was the first opposite party and respondents 1 to 4 were the complainant and opposite parties 2 to 4 respectively in CC No. 101/2007 on the file of CDRF, Alappuzha.  The complaint therein was filed alleging deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties 1 to 4 due to their failure to pay the deposited amount of Rs. 4,50,000/- with interest from September 2006 onwards.  Thus, the aforesaid complaint was filed for getting the deposited amount with interest, compensation and costs.

2.      The first opposite party entered appearance in the said CC No. 101/2007 and filed written version contending that there was no deficiency of service on the part of the first opposite party; that the complainant is not a consumer of the opposite parties; that the first opposite party is not a necessary party to the said proceedings; that the first opposite party has never entered into any transaction with the complainant; that the first opposite party SNDP Yogam is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1882 with limited liability; that the first opposite party shall have Sakha and Union and that the internal management of Sakhas and Unions are vested with them.  Thus, the first opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint with cost and compensatory cost.

3.      The notices were issued to the opposite parties 2 to 4 and those notices were returned with the endorsement unclaimed.  Thereby the opposite parties 2 to 4 were declared exparte.

4.      Before the Forum below, the complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts. A1 and A2 documents were marked on the side of the complainant.  No evidence was adduced from the side of the first opposite party.  On an appreciation of the evidence on record, the Forum below passed the impugned order dated 30^th October 2008 directing the opposite parties 1 to 4 to pay the principal sum together with interest capitalized to sum of Rs. 5,04,000/- together with interest at 18% per annum from the date of complaint till the date of realization and compensation of Rs. 10,000/- and cost Rs. 2,500/-.  Hence the present appeal by the first opposite party therein.

5.      We heard the learned Counsel for the appellant/first opposite party and the first respondent/complainant.  Respondents 2 to 4 remained absent throughout this appeal proceedings.  The learned Counsel for the appellant submitted his augments based on the grounds urged in the memorandum of the present appeal.  He much relied on the admission made by the complainant as PW1 to the effect that the complainant has no cause of ac