Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 8]

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

The Branch Manager Kerala State ... vs V Hamsa on 28 January, 2016

  	 Cause Title/Judgement-Entry 	    	       STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION  THIRUVANANTHAPURAM             First Appeal No. A/16/9  (Arisen out of Order Dated 31/10/2015 in Case No. CC/271/2014 of District Wayanad)             1. THE BRANCH MANAGER KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LTD  KALPETTA BRANCH   PINANGODE ROAD KALPETTA WAYANAD   WAYANAD  KERALA  2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LTD   CORPORATE OFFICE BHADRATHA THRISSUR   THRISSUR  KERALA ...........Appellant(s)   Versus      1. V HAMSA  VYSYAN HOUSE KAMBLAKKAD POST KANIYAMPATTA AMSOM VYTHIRI TALUK WAYANAD  WAYANAD  KERALA ...........Respondent(s)       	    BEFORE:      HON'ABLE MR. JUSTICE SRI P.Q.BARKATH ALI PRESIDENT     SRI. V. V. JOSE MEMBER          For the Appellant:  For the Respondent:     	    ORDER   

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

 

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 

Dated this the 28th January 2016

 

 

 

PRESENT:

 

HON.JUSTICE.P.Q.BARKATHALI   : PRESIDENT

 

SRI. V.V.JOSE                                    : MEMBER

 

 A/9/2016

 

1. Branch Manager, K.S.F.E. Ltd,

 

    Kalpetta Branch, Pinangode Road,

 

    Kalpetta, Vythiri Taluk, Wayanad                                -     Appellants/  Opp.Parties

 

2. K.S.F.E Ltd Company, Bhadratha,

 

   Thrissur, Rep. by its Managing Director

 

(By Adv. P. Jayapalanthampi)

 

 

 

                                                              Vs

 

V.Hamsa, S/o.Ammed,                                          -        Respondent/Complainant

 

Vysyan House, Kambalakkad post,

 

Kaniyambatta Amsom Desom,

 

Vythiri Taluk,  Wayanad.

 

 

 

 JUDGMENT
 

JUSTICE. SRI. P.Q. BARKATH ALI : PRESIDENT   This is an appeal filed by the opposite parties in CC 271/2014 on the file of Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Wayanad, Kalpetta challenging the order of the Forum dated October 31, 2015 directing the opposite parties to pay to the complainant Rs.21,304/- with interest along with a compensation of Rs.3,000/- and a cost of Rs.2,000/- .

 

 The case of the complainant as testified by him as PW1  before the Forum  and as detailed in the complaint in brief  is this:

 
Complainant was a subscriber  of chitty No.3/05 and  66/09 conducted by the 1st opposite party, K.S.F.E.  Complainant paid Rs.5,000/- in chitty No.3/05 and the chitty was auctioned in the name of the complainant.  Since the complainant failed to produce  necessary documents, the auction price of Rs.1,55,000/- was not received  by the complainant.  Thereafter complainant did not pay the installments.  The subsequent installments were adjusted  attached with the auctioned amount.  Complainant paid  Rs.37,500/- in chitty No.66/09 and thereafter defaulted.  When the complainant demanded the deposited amount in chitty No.66/09 after its termination, the opposite party gave only Rs.14,159/- on the ground  that Rs.21,304/- was credited in chitty account No.3/05.  Complainant filed the complaint claiming  the said amount of Rs.21,304/- with interest and compensation.
 
 The first opposite party is Kalpetta branch of K.S.F.E and 2nd opposite party is its head office at Thrissur.  They in their version contented thus before the Forum.  It is admitted that  chitty No.3/05  was auctioned and the prize amount due to the complainant as on 30/04/2015 was Rs.1,54,719/-.  But the future liability then was Rs.1,95,000/- for 39 installments at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per month.  As complainant did not produce sufficient security the price amount was kept in chitty account of the opposite party.  As the complainant defaulted subsequent  installments the monthly installments were adjusted from the prize amount.  The chitty was terminated on 19/06/2008 and a sum of Rs.21,304/-  was due from the complainant.  It is admitted that in chitty No.66/09  Rs. 31,463/- is due to the complainant.  After adjusting Rs.21,304/-  being  the amount due in chitty No.3/05 only Rs.14,159/- was paid to him.     Therefore complaint has to be dismissed.
 
The complainant was examined as PW1 and  Ext.A1 to A4 were marked on his side and on the side of the opposite parties OPW1 was examined Ext.B1 to B8 were marked.  On an appreciation of evidence the Forum found that the opposite parties adjusted  the amount due from the complainant in chitty No.3/05 from chitty no. 66/09  without his consent and directed the opposite parties to pay to  the complainant Rs.21,304/- with interest along with a  compensation of Rs.3,000/- and a cost of Rs.2,000/-. Opposite parties have now come up in appeal challenging the said order of the Forum.
 
The following points arise for consideration.
 
Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the  opposite parties?
Whether the  impugned order of the Forum can be sustained?                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                
 
When the appellant came up for admission the counsel for the appellant was heard.
Almost all the facts are admitted.  In chitty No.66/09 complainant paid Rs.37,500/- and the said amount was due to the complainant.  Opposite parties adjusted Rs.21,304/- allegedly due from the complainant in chitty No.3/05.  Condition  Number  19(a)  of Ext.B3 shows that  if a subscriber defaulted the chitty, the subscriber will get the remitted amount after deducting the lawful commission after 30 days from the date of termination of chitty.  Condition No.19(b) provides that if a subscriber defaulted the chitty and if he is removed from the name and substituted by another, the remitted amount should be given to the subscriber on his demand even before termination of chitty and after deducting lawful commission of chitty company.  The case of the opposite party is that the  opposite party had general lien over the property  and amount due from the complainant.  But no document is produced to prove the same.  Here the opposite party adjusted    the amount allegedly  due from the  complainant  in chitty No.  3/2005  from the amount due to the complainant  in chitty no. 66/09  without  the consent  of the complainant which opposite party is not legally entitled.    Thus the Forum is perfectly justified in holding that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. 
The Forum has  ordered to pay to the complainant Rs.21,304/- with interest @ 12% p.a from April 11, 2004 along with  a compensation of Rs.3,000/- and a cost of Rs.2,000/-. We find no ground to interfere  with the  said finding of the Forum. 
In the result we find no  ground to admit the appeal and the same is hereby dismissed .
Pronounced in the Open Court on this the 28th  January, 2016.
   
JUSTICE. P.Q.BARKATH ALI     :   PRESIDENT

 

 

 

     V.V.JOSE                                        :   MEMBER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

              [HON'ABLE MR. JUSTICE SRI P.Q.BARKATH ALI]  PRESIDENT 
     [ SRI. V. V. JOSE]  MEMBER