State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Tmt.B.Sundari, ... vs The Manager, Sri Ram Chits & Finance ... on 27 June, 2011
THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI. BENCH - II Present: Thiru.J.Jayaram, M.A., M.L., Presiding Judicial Member Thiru.S.Sambandam, B.Sc., Member F.A.No.780/2010 [Against order in C.C.No.29/2006 on the file of the DCDRF,Villupuram] DATED THIS THE 27th DAY OF JUNE 2011. 1. Tmt.B.Sundari, W/o.V.Venkatachalapathy, 3, Sadenkuttai Veethi, Tindivanam 604 001. 2. V.Venkatachalapathy, S/o.E.Varadharajan, 3, Sadenkuttai Veethi, Tindivanam 604 001. .. Appellants/Complainants Vs. The Manager, Sri Ram Chits & Finance Corporation, 16C Perumal koil Street, Tindivanam 604 001. .. Respondent/Opposite party This appeal coming before us for final hearing on 09.06.2011 and on hearing the arguments of the appellant and upon perusing the material records, this Commission made the following order : Counsel for the Appellants/complainants : Mr.V.Venkatachalapathy (In person) Counsel for the Respondent/Opposite party : M/s.P.Sridharan, Advocate. ORDER
J. JAYARAM, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER
1. The complainants are the appellants herein.
2. This appeal is filed by the complainants against the order of the District Forum, Villupuram in C.C.No.29/2006 dated 27.8.2010, claiming enhancement of compensation awarded by the District Forum, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.
3. The 1st complainant is the wife of the 2nd complainant.
The case of the complainants is that they purchased a two wheeler vehicle, availing loan from the opposite party and the entire loan was discharged. But out of cheuqes issued by the complainants to the opposite party the cheque dated 7.5.04 was either misplaced or lost by the opposite party and the opposite party wanted another cheque from the opposite party and the complainants informed the opposite party that they would issue another cheque as required by the opposite party, after clearing the loan. But the opposite party sent some henchmen to the residence of the complainant, and on 25.8.04, created a seen in front of the public and behaved indecently humiliating and defaming the complainants before the public which caused annoyance and loss of respect in the society and they were put to shame and the opposite party did not release the documents relating to the vehicle and did not return the alternative key of the vehicleand and hence the complaint praying for compensation of Rs.1,80,000/- in total and praying for direction to return the documents relating to the vehicle and to hand over the alternative key of the vehicle.
4. The opposite party remained absent before the District Forum and was initially set exparte. On appeal to the State Commission the case was remanded to the District Forum for deciding whether the complainants were entitled to enhanced compensation and on that basis the opposite party was permitted to file the version and the opposite party filed the version before the District Forum.
5. The District Forum in the first order dated 26.10.07 passed an order awarding compensation of Rs.5,000/- and to return all the documents relating to the vehicle. In the 2nd order dated 27.8.2010, the District Forum passed an order enhancing the compensation from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.10,000/- and directing the opposite party to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- to both the complainants in total and further directed the opposite party to return the documents relating to the vehicle with an alternative key. Not satisfied with the quantum of compensation, the complainants have preferred this appeal.
6. It is pertinent to note that the respondent/ opposite party has not filed any appeal against both the orders of the District Forum date 26.10.07 and 27.8.10.
Therefore the finding and the decision of the District Forum remain unchallenged by the respondent/opposite party.
7. Therefore the only point for consideration, is whether the appellants/complainants are entitled to higher compensation. It is relevant to note the incident dates back to 7.5.2004 and the consumer complaint has been pending since the year 2006 and the respondents/complainants have been struggling since then for the past so many years claiming compensation. We have to note that the respondents/complainants are senior citizens and the 2nd complainant is a retired teacher and the complainant is his wife and they have suffered humiliation in the presence of the public by the hooligans sent by the respondent/opposite party.
8. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we feel that the compensation awarded by the District Forum is low and is not proportionate to the sufferings and loss of respect undergone by the respondents.
Therefore we are inclined to enhance the compensation a little more to meet the ends of justice.
9. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part, modifying the order of the District Forum and enhancing the compensation to Rs.15,000/- and directing the respondent/opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- as compensation and confirming the rest of the order of the District Forum. The respondent/opposite party shall pay costs of Rs.5,000/- in this appeal.
S.SAMBANDAM J.JAYARAM MEMBER PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER INDEX : YES / NO sg/B-II/J.J./Finance