State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
T.R. Raveendran vs 1. V. George Babu,(Forman on 30 November, 2011
Daily Order
Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Vazhuthacaud,Thiruvananthapuram First Appeal No. A/10/649 (Arisen out of Order Dated 16/08/2010 in Case No. CC/05/90 of District Pathanamthitta) 1. T.R RAVEENDRAN KIP QUATERS,NELLIMOORIL PADI.ADOOR PATHANAMTHITTA KERALA ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. V.GEORGE BABU MOOZHIYIL KURIES,THENGAMAM.P.O,PULLICKAL PATHANAMTHITTA KERALA 2. AMMINI MANAGER,MOOZHIYIL KURIES PATHANAMTHITTA KERALA ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HONARABLE MR. JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU PRESIDENT PRESENT: ORDER KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSALCOMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
APPEAL 649/10
JUDGMENT DATED 30.11.2011
PRESENT:-
JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT
APPELLANT
T.R. Raveendran,
KIP Quarters Nellimoorril Padi,
Adoor - 691 523
(Rep. by Adv.S. Reghukumar)
Vs
RESPONDENTS
1.V. George Babu,(Forman), Moozhiyil Kuries, Adoor - 691 523 (Moozhiyil Veedu, Thengamam P.O., Pullickal.
2. Ammini, Manager, Moozhiyil Kuries, Adoor P.O. (Rep. by Adv.Smt. S. Lathika) JUDGMENT JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The appellant is the complainant in O.P. 90/05 in the file of CDRF, Pathanamthitta. The complaint stands dismissed.
It is the case of the complainant that he had subscribed two numbers in the Chitty conducted by the opposite parties. The sala of each chitty was Rs. 50,000/- with 25 installments and each installment of Rs. 2,000/- In February, 2004 the first chitty (Chittal No. 5) was prized in favour of the complainant at 7th installment and the prized amount ie. Rs. 35,000/- was paid after furnishing security and providing blank cheques and signed blank stamp papers. The second chitty was auctioned at 15th installment. The complainant requested the opposite party to settle the gold loan amount of Rs. 7,000/- and its interest and also to pay Rs. 10,000/- for the complainant's immediate needs. The above request was complied with. The opposite party refused to pay the balance chitty amount. Further without obtaining the consent of the complainant a sum of Rs. 1,750/- was deducted for a new chitty in the name of the complainant. It was also stated that the total prize amount of the second chitty is only Rs. 40,000/- instead of Rs. 47,500/- Thereafter there was no requirement to execute sufficient securities in view of the fact that the complainant had already executed security documents with respect to the first chitty. The complainant has also alleged that the opposite parties have collected excess interest for the gold loan. The complainant has sought for adequate compensation for the loss sustained.
The opposite parties have filed version denying the allegations. It is pointed out that the complainant failed to execute the necessary security documents for the second chitty and hence the amount could not be paid. Certain amounts were released as a courtesy. It is denied that Rs. 1,750/- was taken without the knowledge of the complainant. It is asserted that as per the terms of the Variola the complainant is entitled to get only Rs. 40,000/- in the second chitty. It is also pointed out that the complainant has remitted only 15 installments.
The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of Pw1,Dw1, Exts. A1 to A8, B1 and B2.
The Forum has held that the contention that the amount to be paid with respect to the second chitty is only Rs. 40,000/- cannot be approved in view of Clause 7 of the Variyola. The deduction of Rs. 1,750/- was also found to be unjustifiable as nothing has been produced to show that the complainant has agreed to join in a new chitty. All the same, the Forum has held that there is no justification for not remitting the subsequent installments and for not executing the security and hence dismissed the complaint.
We find that admittedly only 15 installments of each of the chitties have been remitted. The complainant was altogether paid a sum of Rs. 52,840/- ie Rs. 35,000/- with respect to the first chitty, Rs. 10,000/- in cash with respect to the second chitty and Rs. 7,840/- with respect to the settlement of the gold loan and interest from the second chitty. The amount altogether remitted including dividend is only Rs. 60,000/- ie 15 installments for each chitty @ Rs. 2,000/- per installments. He has remitted an amount in each installments excluding dividend amounting to Rs. 500/-, 400/-, & 300/- in certain installments/in 9 installments, the dividend was Rs. 500/- in chital No. 11 and @ 400/- for 3 installments. The same is the case in Chittal No. 5 also. Of course the Foreman's commission is only 5% as per Clause 7 of the Variyola. We find that the complainant can not be said to have sustained any loss. There is lapse on the part of the complainant also. His contention that he had already executed security for the first chitty and hence security for the second chitty is not required is not correct. He has also not remitted the balance installments in the first chitty the amount of which was paid to him. In the circumstances we find that no interference in the order of the Forum is called for. The appeal is stands dismissed.
The office is directed to forward the L.C.R. along with the copy of this order to the Forum below.
JUSTICE K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT [HONARABLE MR. JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU] PRESIDENT