State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
P.N Muralikrishna vs Manappuram Finance Ltd on 9 June, 2015
Daily Order KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION SISUVIHARLANE VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REVISION PETITION.NO.14/14 ORDER DATED : 09.06.2015 (Revision petition filed against the order in IA.No.31/2013 in CC.No.127/2013 on the file of CDRF, Alappuzha order dated : 24.04.2013) PRESENT SRI.K.CHANDRADAS NADAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER SMT.A.RADHA : MEMBER SMT.SANTHAMMA THOMAS : MEMBER REVISION PETITIONER P.N.Murali Krishna, S/o.Narayanan, Paranar & Co, Vimala Nivas, Eramalloor, Alappuzha, Pin - 688 537 VS RESISION COUNTER PETITIONERS 1. Manappuram Finance Ltd, Thuravoor Branch, Thuravoor - 688532 Rep.by its Branch Manager 2. Manappuram Finance Ltd, GL Recovery Department, Manappuram House, Valapad, Thrissur - 680 567 Rep.by its Manager (By Adv.S.Reghukumar) ORDER
SRI.K.CHANDRADAS NADAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER Revision petitioner is the complainant in CC.No.127/2013 in the CDRF, Alappuzha. He approached the District Consumer Forum when the opposite parties, finance company and its recovery department issued demand notice to him in respect of six loans availed from the first opposite party by pledging gold ornaments. Along with the complaint he filed IA.No.31/2013 seeking order of interim injunction to direct the opposite parties to stop all further proceedings pursuant to the demand notice dated 09.04.2013. The District Consumer Forum allowed the application and restrained the opposite parties from taking further steps pursuant to the notice dated 09.04.2013 in respect of the gold loans till the final disposal of the application. There after, the opposite parties entered appearance and filed version. As both parties expressed readiness to settle the matter, the case was adjourned and when settlement was reported the Consumer Forum directed the complainant to pay half of the total amount agreed on or before 17.01.2014. But the complainant / revision petitioner failed to comply with the order. Therefore, the District Consumer Forum heard the interim application and again directed him to pay half of the principal amount and made it clear that in case of failure the order of injunction would be vacated. Even thereafter the complainant failed to comply with the order. Hence the Consumer Forum passed the impugned order vacating the order of interim injunction. The said order is being challenged in this revision petition.
2. The short question is whether the order of the Consumer Forum vacating the order of temporary injunction suffers from any material, irregularity, illegality or error in exercise of its jurisdiction. In this regard, the facts narrated speak by itself. The revision petitioner is not ready to pay any sum to the opposite party even at the revisional stage insisting that interest in excess of agreed rate is being claimed. But the rate of interest is governed by contract between parties. The revision petitioner is not even ready to honour the settlement with the opposite parties. The revision petitioner is not ready to pay half of the principal amount due to the opposite parties. This to say the least is negative attitude on the part of the revision petitioner which can not be encouraged and at any rate does not warrant sympathy from the Consumer Forum so as to exercise the discretionary jurisdiction of granting temporary injunction. The consumer Forum in passing order of injunction really exceeded its jurisidiciton in favour of the revision petitioner. So conversely in vacating the order no error is committed by the District Consumer Forum. The revision petition is absolutely devoid of merit. Hence dismissed with cost of Rs.2000/-.
K.CHANDRADAS NADAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER
A.RADHA : MEMBER
SANTHAMMA THOMAS : MEMBER
Be/
KERALA STATE
CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION
SISUVIHARLANE
VAZHUTHACADU
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
REV. PETITION.NO.14/14
ORDER
DATED : 09.06.2015
Be/