State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Manager, Ksfe vs Radhamany on 8 February, 2011
Daily Order
First Appeal No. A/09/666 (Arisen out of Order Dated 30/09/2009 in Case No. OP 424/04 of District Thiruvananthapuram) 1. The Manager, KSFE Ltd. Kerala ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. Radhamany Kerala ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA PRESIDING MEMBER PRESENT: ORDER KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSALCOMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
APPEAL NO. 666/09
JUDGMENT DATED. 8.2.2010
PRESENT:-
SMT. VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER
SHRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER
SHRI. M.K. ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER
APPELLANTS
1. The Manager,
Kerala State Financial Enterprises Ltd.,
Attingal Branch, Attingal.
2. The Regional Manager,
KSFE,(Presently Assistant General Manager),
Thiruvananthapuram.
3. Managing Director,
Kerala State Financial Enterprises Ltd.,
Museum Road, Trichur.
(Rep. by Adv. Sri. P.K. Venugopal.)
Vs
RESPONDENT
Radhamany,
Thenguvila Veedu,
Kannankarakonam, Thonnackal P.O.,
Thiruvananthapuram.
(Rep. by Adv. Sri. P. Rajmohan)
JUDGMENT
SHRI. M.K. ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER This appeal prefers from the order passed by the CDRF, Trivandrum in O.P. No. 424/04 dated 30.9.2009 . The appellants are the opposite parties and the respondent is the complainant in the above O.P. The opposite parties prefers this appeal under the direction of the Forum below that the opposite parties directed to pay the amount which has been paid by the complainant as chitty installments with veethapalisa, after deducting the commission as on 16.4.2009.
In short the complainant is the subscriber of the chitty which conducted by the opposite parties and the chitty amount is Rs. 1,00,000/- She regularly paid the installments till 16.9.2004. On that day when she came before the opposite party's office to remit the chitty installments she was informed that the chitty had bid in her favor on 18.8.2003. Immediately after that she enquired the manager about the chitty then he replied that he had informed the matter at that time it is by registered post. The complainant enquired at the post office about this, and then the post office authorities told her that they have got nothing from KSFE for the complainant. Thereafter again the complainant approached the opposite party for her grievances. But they behave very badly towards the complainant. The complainant sent notices to the opposite party, but they did not respond to it. Hence the complaint.
The opposite parties filed their version and they contented that as per the terms of proxy the opposite party is not bound to inform the fact of bidding subscriber is to enquire with the branch and understand the results of each auction. In spite of specific condition, the opposite party intimated the complainant about the results, of auction which conducted on 22.8.2003. She did not produce surety withdrawal of prize money. She was intimated about prizing of chitty in her favor when she visited the branch for remitting chitty subscription. On receipt of her complaint the above non receipt of prize intimation letter , the opposite party enquired with the Attingal Post office about the fate of registered letter regarding the price intimation addressed to the complainant and the customer care centre of postal department intimated that the letter was duly dispatch on 22.8.2003. A subsequent letter also sent by the opposite party under certificate of posting on 25.10.2004, but she did not turn up to receive the prize money by producing surety. The opposite party is willing to release the prize money on and when she produce surety as per the rules of the company represented by this respondent. There is no deficiency in service so as to attract the intervention of the Forum. In the circumstances, complaint is only to be dismissed in limine. Further they submitted that she did not produce sureties till the date of filing of complaint or withdrawal of prize money even after her coming to know bidding on 16.9.2004.
The Forum below raised two points mainly:
1) Whether there is deficiency in service from the side of opposite parties?
2) Relief and costs?
The evidence consists of Exts. P1 to P4, from the side of the complainant and for the opposite parties examined one witness as Dw1 and marked Exts. D1 to D9. The Forum below discussed the entire matter on the strength of the arguments of both sides and on the strength of the evidence available before them. The Forum below taken a view that the complainant is entitled to get the amount which has been made by her chitty installments with Veethapalisa after deducting the Commission as on 16.4.2009.
On this day the appeal came before this commission for final hearing both the counsels for appellant and respondents are present and they argued vehemently the respective case. The counsel for the appellant argued their case on the strength of the appeal memorandum that the non prized defaulted subscribers are entitled to refund of chitty amounts remitted only after 30 days of termination of chitty. As per the contention of the Variyola, the Ext. D9 the complainant is prize defaulted subscriber and that such not entitled for refund of remitted amount in chitty with veethapalisa as per the terms of clause 19 of Variola. The counsel for the appellant argued that the Forum below passed the impugned order without considering the evidence adduced by the appellants and not accordance with the provisions of law and evidence. He prays to allow the appeal and to set aside the impugned order passed by the Forum below. He also submitted that the Forum did not find any deficiency in service as per the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act and any unfair trade practice against these appellants He submitted that without such a finding the Forum is not having any legal competency to pass such an impugned order. The counsel for the respondent/complainant submitted that the order passed by the Forum below is strictly on accordance with the provisions of law and evidence. We this Commission heard in detail and perused the entire evidence adduce by both parties before the Forum and it is seeing that the Forum below found that the chitty subscriber is also equally responsible to enquire that regard to the bid of the chitty and as per the rules when the production of surety no chitty prize money will be dispersed. We are seeing that the Ext. D2, Photocopy of register of department of post office and Ext. D6 and D7 are not corroborating each other. This is not also sufficient to establish that the opposite parties issued proper intimation letter to the complainant about the event of the chitty. We are seeing that the complainant paid the amount under the head of the chitty to the opposite parties. The money was enjoyed by the opposite parties after the termination of the chitty amount was credited in the Sugama A/c. The opposite party concerned is also having the legal permission to mobilize fixed deposit from the public. The appellant/opposite parties deposited this amount for the Sugama deposit scheme and not in the fixed deposit scheme. As per the chitty Act, this account is mandatory to deposit in the fixed deposit. Due to this act of the opposite parties the complainant lossed their money. Interest rate of the Sugama deposit is lower than that of the interest rate of the fixed deposits. The counsel of the appellants submitted an explanation for the act of the opposite party that there is a circular from the government of Kerala authorized the opposite parties to do so. But it is not legally sustainable. The Kerala Chitty Act, is a statutory Act, which passed by the Kerala Legislative Assembly. The provisions of the statute can not be over ridden by a government order. It is illegal.
It will affect the privilege of the sovereign body of the State Legislative Assembly of Kerala The Forum below did not find any unfair trade and deficiency in service from the part of the opposite parties.
The Forum below did not order any compensation and cost in that head. But we find deficiency in service and unfair trade practice from the part of the opposite parties/appellant. There is no appeal preferred by the respondent/complainant from the order passed by the Forum below. We are seeing that the complainant/respondent is entitled to get an amount already paid by her as chitty installments with Veetha Palisa after deducting the commission on 16.4.2009. We are seeing that the order passed by the Forum below is strictly accordance with the provisions of law and evidence. It is legally sustainable. We upheld the order passed by the Forum below is strictly accordance with the provisions of law and evidence. It is legally sustainable. We upheld the order passed by the Forum below. We are not seeing any apparent error or legal reason to interfere in the order passed by the Forum below.
In the result, this appeal is dismissed and the order passed by the Forum below is confirmed. Both parties are directed to suffer their own respective costs.
M.K. ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER
VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER
M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER
ST
[ SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA] PRESIDING MEMBER