MUTHOOT FINANCE PVT. LTD Vs. PREENU ZACHARIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Surya Prakash, Advocate for the petitioners and Mr. Wills Mathew, Advocate for the respondents.

(2.) This revision petition has been filed against the order of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kerala, dated 23.12.2019, passed in First Appeal No. 713 of 2017 (arising from the order of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Alappuzha, dated 31.08.2017 passed in Consumer Complaint No. 186 of 2016), where by the complaint has been allowed and the appeal has been dismissed.

(3.) Preenu Zachariah and Priya Zachariah (the respondents) filed Consumer Complaint No. 186 of 2016 on 07.06.2016 for directing the petitioners to pay (i) Rs.4,90,000/- along with interest, from the date of deposit to Preenu Zachariah (ii) Rs.9,00,000/- along with interest, from the date of deposit to Priya Zachariah (iii) Rs.2,00,000/- for their mental agony and hardship and (iv) cost of litigation to them. It has been stated that Zachariah Mathew (father of the complainants) was a non-resident Indian and was working in Kuwait. The opposite parties were a Banking Finance Public Limited Company, approved by Reserve Bank of India and engaged in the business of financial service. They had a branch at Cherukole, Mavelikara. The complainants deposited various amounts, during 20.10.2008 to 30.08.2012, in the branch at Cherukole, through account payee cheques, i.e. total Rs.4,90,000/- by Preenu Zachariah and total Rs.9,00,000/- by Priya Zachariah. In September, 2013, Zachariah Mathew came back to his house from Kuwait and went to the branch office Cherukole for withdrawing money deposited by him but payment was denied on the pretext that the Branch Manager of Cherukole branch had misappropriated some amount and an inquiry was going on against him. The complainants gave legal notice dated 10.07.2014 to the opposite parties for refunding, their entire money of Rs.13,90,000/- along with interest accrued on it as per plan of the deposit, then they gave a reply that as soon as they would realize the misappropriated amount, payment would be done. On the allegation that the deposits made by the complainants, cannot be withheld on the ground that Branch Manager had misappropriated some amount, the present complaint was filed.