State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Manager, vs V.J. Thomas, S/O. Thomas on 23 March, 2012
Daily Order
Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Vazhuthacaud,Thiruvananthapuram First Appeal No. A/11/821 (Arisen out of Order Dated 21/06/2011 in Case No. CC/10/187 of District Kasaragod) 1. KSFE LTD ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. V.J.THOMAS ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA PRESIDING MEMBER PRESENT: ORDER
KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
APPEAL NO. 821/11
JUDGMENT DATED : 23.3.2012
PRESENT:
JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT
SHRI. M.K. ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER
1. The Manager,
Kerala State Financial Enterprises Ltd.,
Chittarickal Branch, P.O. Chittarickal.
2. The Managing Director,
Kerala State Financial Enterprises Ltd.,
Reg. Office, "Badratha", P.B. No.510,
Museum Road, Thrissur - 680 020. : APPELLANTS
(By Advs M. Sasindran & Biju George)
Vs.
V.J. Thomas, S/o. Thomas,
Vallippalakkal House,
Chittarickal Village and Post,
Hosdurg Taluk, Kasaragod Dist. : RESPONDENT
(By Adv. Mahesh, amicus curiae)
JUDGMENT
SHRI. M.K. ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER This appeal prefers from the order passed by the CDRF, Kasargod in CC No. 187/2010 dated:21.06.2011. The appellants are the opposite parties and the respondent is the complainant.
2. This appeal prefers from the direction of the Forum below that directed the opposite parties to pay the Chitty amount after deducting any amount as per rules and after accepting the security mentioned above and also directed to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- and cost of Rs.2,000/- to the complainant.
3. In short, this dispute araised from the part of the opposite parties that they denied the security offered by the complainant for the release of the chitty amount. The 1st opposite party informed the complainant that they would keep the amount due to him in fixed deposit and it is entered in the pass book issued to the complainant. Since the complainant urgently in need of money and approached to the 1st opposite party and enquired about the formalities to release the amount. Opposite party No.1 suggest to provide employees as the guarantors or execute property deed for the release of the amount. Then the complainant arranged two employees of KSRTC to stand as solvent sureties for the release of the amount and produced them before opposite party No.1. But the Manager told that KSRTC employees are not acceptable as sureties. Then the complainant arranged his father's property to execute the bond as surety. The complainant produced the required documents as demanded by opposite party No.1. But at last the complainant asked original of the basic document of his father. But the original of the document was irrecoverably lost. The complainant has produced the certified copy of the basic document. According to the complainant it is well settled that if an original document is lost, the certified copy from the sub registry is well and sufficient to meet the needs. But the opposite party is not ready to accept the certified copy of the basic document. The complainant further submits that though as per the entries in the pass book the amount is kept in fixed deposit but it was an interestless deposit. At last on 20.7.2010 the complainant sent a letter to the opposite parties. Both parties received the notice and opposite party No.2 send a false reply. Hence the complaint is filed for necessary relief.
4. The opposite parties contended in their written version that the opposite parties admitted the chitty subscribed by the complainant and the prizing of the chitty to the complainant. According to the opposite parties the KSRTC officials do not recover the defaulted amount from the salaries of the employees and therefore the company did not accept their bond and that the company has issued a circular to the effect. But these opposite parties denied that the complainant has produced any salary certificate of KSRTC employees before the opposite party No.1. The opposite parties further submit that the complainant wanted to execute a bond in respect of his father's landed property as security but he failed to produce the basic document. According to the opposite parties, the standing counsel of the company to whom the property documents were given for legal opinion opined that the property could not be accepted without the prior title deed in respect of the property. It is further submitted by the opposite parties that the request of the complainant to transfer his prized amount as the fixed deposit could not be entertained. The complainant has defaulted to pay installments of the chitty subsequent to the prizing of the chitty. As per the chitty proceedings of the opposite party company the prized amount could not be transferred in to the account of the subscriber as FD when there arrears of installments. Therefore as per practice and procedure, the amount after deducting the defaulted installments and service charges was converted as Chitty Security Deposit in Trust (CSDT). The complainant was not prepared to pay the defaulted installments directly. According to opposite parties they acted only in accordance with the law and as per the procedures of the chitty. It is further submits that the opposite parties are ready to release the prized amount lying in his account to him without delay if he furnish sufficient security and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
5. The evidence consists of the evidence of PW1 the complainant and Exts. A1 to A4 on the part of the complainant and 1st opposite party is examined as DW1 and no document is produced.
6. The Forum below discussed the entire matter and answered one by one. The opposite parties did not stated that the KSRTC Officials do not recover the defaulted amount from the salaries of the employees and therefore the KSFE is not accepting their bond and circular has also been issued to that effect. Further it was contended that the complainant has not produced any salary certificate of the KSRTC employees before the opposite parties. It is nothing but pleadings in their version. According to the opposite parties the complainant had not produce the back documents of the property offered as security. The standing counsel for the opposite parties/complainant gives a legal opinion that the property could not be accepted without the basic deed in receipt of the property. But the opposite parties had not produce before the Forum below the legal opinion given by the counsel in the case of the complainant. While, cross examination DW1 had disposed that he has not seen the legal opinion regarding the security offered by the complainant. The Forum below taken a view that usually the original document is loosed then the certified copy can be substituted. Here the original document is loosed the certified copy with an affidavit, is enough to execute the bond. The Forum below found the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and the Forum below allowed the complaint and passed the above impugned order.
7. On this day this appeal came before this commission for final hearing; both counsels are present and the counsel for the appellant strongly argued that the order passed by the Forum below is not accordance with the provisions of law and evidence. The counsel submitted that this instruction given to the complainant for release the chitty amount was given by them on the basis of the legal opinion given by the standing counsel of the opposite parties/company. But the Forum found that if the original title deed was loosed it can be substituted by the certified copy issued by the Sub registry Office concerned. We perused the entire case records and heard in detail. The legal opinion or any circular relied with the contention of the version of the opposite parties are not seeing to produced before the Forum to support their case. But it cannot be insisted any person to produce or disclose the legal advise given by the Lawyer to produce before a court. It is a privilege document. This argument of the counsel for the respondent/appellant on practice admitted that the opposite parties are realizing the chitty amount to the complainant (subscriber) it is the right and duty of the opposite party company to ensure the repayment of the amount on strict terms and conditions. It cannot be claimed that the opposite parties done unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. The title deed produced by the complainant not belonging to him but it is belongs to his father. Definitely the opposite party can be asked to produce the back documents from the property. They are rechecking the further legal applications. It cannot be expected simply that the back document can be substituted by the certified copy especially the person who produced the document not a property belonging to him but this property belongs to his father who is a stranger we can't agree with these findings of this Forum below. If the original document of any property is seeing loosed it is the first procedure is give public notice then after apply for certified copy. This certified copy enclosed with the above paper publication and affidavit is the procedure adopted. It is not possible to produce the original fit found lost. No legal advisor or any other person can discard the principles of law. But it is their duty also to worst such documents it found legally necessary. The opposite parties being as a Government of Kerala Public Undertaking all the norms and principles taken by the directions of the company in the Board of Directors Apart from this is, the finance department of Kerala is issuing sufficient circulars to the company time to time. But the opposite parties failed to produce any such circular or government order, rule or manual regarding this matter. But it is highly necessary to give the condition for release the chitty amount in detail in the variola or in a pass book of the chitty by the opposite parties. For harassing the subscribers they have no right to insist more hard conditions for release their chitty amount. The opposite party/company and their office employees are survive only because of this type of customers. They can't simply ignore their rights and privileges without any reasonable explanations. It is unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. In such a circumstance, the customers will be compelled to approach private chitty companies and financial institutions. The counsel for the appellant submitted before this commission is that they released the amount to the complainant as per the direction of the Forum below. We are seeing that the appellant/opposite parties released the amount to the complainant. This relief is elapsed by this submission of the counsel for the appellant. We set aside this direction from the order of the Forum below. We decide to modify the compensation and cost ordered by the Forum below.
In the result, this appeal is allowed in part and direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation and cost of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant. For the basis of the undertaking done by the counsel that they released the entire amount to the complainant. We modified the amount of compensation and cost ordered by the Forum below as mentioned above.
The points of the appeal discussed one by one and answered accordingly, No cost ordered.
M.K. ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER JUSTICE K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT Da [ SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA] PRESIDING MEMBER