National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Manager, Kerala State Financial ... vs Radhamany on 3 December, 2019
Author: R.K. Agrawal
Bench: R.K. Agrawal
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 42 OF 2012 (Against the Order dated 08/02/2010 in Appeal No. 666/2009 of the State Commission Kerala) 1. MANAGER, KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LTD. & ANR. Attingal Branch, Attingal, Thiruvanathapuram Kerala ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. RADHAMANY Thenguvial Veddu, Kannankarakonam, Thonnackal P.O Thiruvanathapuram Kerala 2. The Regional Manager, KSFE, (Presently Assitant General Manager) Thiruvananthapuram Kerala 3. Managing Directro, Kerala State Financial Enterprises Ltd., Museum Road, Trichur Kerala ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. AGRAWAL,PRESIDENT HON'BLE MRS. M. SHREESHA,MEMBER For the Petitioner : Mr. N.N. Balachandran, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Aswin Kumar MJ, Advocate.
Dated : 03 Dec 2019 ORDER MRS. M. SHREESHA, MEMBER
The present Revision Petition under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act") has been preferred by the Complainant against the order dated 08.02.2010 in First Appeal No. 666 of 2009 passed by the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short "the State Commission"). By the impugned order, the State Commission has dismissed the Appeal preferred by the Kerala State Financial Enterprises Ltd. (for short "KSFE") and upheld the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Vazhuthacaud (for short "the District Forum") vide which the District Forum disposed of the Complaint in the following manner:-
"In the instant case, from the documents and pleadings it could be found that the complainant has never produced any surety before the opposite parties and the complainant has no case that in spite of production of sureties, she has not been given the prize money. Here only allegation is that she has not been informed with regard to the chitty prize intimation but this is controverted by Ext. D7 produced by the opposite parties. From the above we are of the view that the complainant has miserably failed to establish any allegations levelled against the opposite parties and moreover the allegation in the complaint are not at all justifiable. From the pleadings, documents and evidences adduced by the complainant and opposite parties we are of the view that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the side of opposite parties. The opposite parties informed the bididng of chitty on 22.08.2003 itself to the complainant. Ext. D7 is the evidence of that registered letter delivery. In this case complainant was not ready to produce surety to receive the amount. The complainant did not turn up to receive the chitty amount after the lapse of 6 years. As per Ext. D9 terms and conditions of the chitty complainant was entitled to receive the amount which has been remitted by her with veetha palisa, 30 days after the termination of the chitty, i.e. the date of termination was 17.03.2009. Hence on 16.04.2009 complainant was entitled to get the amount. As per Ext. P1 document the complainant has paid 46 instalments.
In the result, we find that the complainant is entitled to get the amount which has been paid by her as chitty instalments with veetah palisa after deducting the commission as on 16.04.2009. But in this case complainant did not receive the amount till date. Hence the complainant is entitled to get 9% annual interest for that amount from 16.04.2009 till the date of realization of the amount. The opposite parties are directed to pay the amount within one month after the receipt of this order. No costs or compensation are allowed."
2. Briefly put the facts of the case are that the Complainant is the subscriber of the Chit conducted by the KSEF bearing No. 20/2000 for an amount of ₹1,00,000/- for a duration of 100 months. She used to regularly pay the installments. On 16.09.2004 when she went to KSEF to deposit her instalment, she was informed by the accountant that her chit had already been auctioned. She immediately approached the Branch Manager who informed her that the chit was auctioned in her favour on 18.08.2003 and the intimation qua the same was sent to her through post. She approached postal authorities who informed her that they never received any article from KSFE. It is averred that on learning this, she again approached KSFE but the officials of KSEF behaved very badly with her. She sent notices but KSFE did not respond. Aggrieved, the Complainant filed the Complaint before the District Forum seeking the following reliefs:-
"1) The chitty amount and interest from 18.08.2003.
2) Compensation of ₹20000/- for not releasing the amount in time and for mental agony for not having treated her daughter."
3. KSFE filed their Written Version to the effect that as per the terms they are bound to inform any subscriber and it is for the subscriber to enquire from the Branch and understand the result of each auction. However, despite this KSFE informed the Complainant about the result of the auction. They enquired with Attingal Post Office about the letter, informing the Complainant about the result and the Post Office informed them that letter was duly dispatched on 22.08.2003. A subsequent letter was also sent by the Opposite party under certificate of posting on 25.10.2004 but the Complainant did not turn up to receive the prize money by producing surety. KSFE is willing to release the prize money as and when the Complainant produces the surety as per their rules.
4. We have heard Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. This Commission vide its order dated 27.09.2012, while granting stay of the operation of the impugned order, observed as follows:-
"During the last date of hearing on 21.03.2012 in this matter, this Commission had inter alia directed that subject to payment of the amount deposited by the Respondent along with interest received by the Petitioner in Sugama deposit within 4 weeks, the operation of the impugned order was stayed. Petitioners were also directed to pay ₹10,000/- to the Respondent to meet the travel and other allied expenses.
Counsel for both parties are present. Counsel for Respondent states that the Petitioners have not fully complied with the above directions and had only paid ₹31,141/- instead of ₹54,644/- because of wrong calculation of the interest. Further, ₹10,000/- as litigation expenses which were to be paid separately to the Respondent was also not paid.
Counsel for Petitioners states that Petitioners had paid a lump-sum amount of ₹31,141/- which included both the amount deposited along with interest as also a sum of ₹10,000/- as litigation expenses payable to the Respondent.
In the order dated 21.03.2012, it was made clear that Petitioners were directed to separately pay a sum of ₹10,000/- to the respondent to meet the travel and other allied expenses. Regarding the dispute pertaining to the amount on the basis of which the impugned order was stayed, Counsel for both parties are directed to supply specific details on the basis of which they have worked the calculated amount on the next date of hearing.
Adjourned to 10.01.2013."
6. Thereafter vide order dated 10.01.2013 it was observed by this Commission that the Petitioner had paid ₹31,141/- to the Respondent and another sum of ₹24,310/- was deposited with the State Commission and that the Petitioner did not have any objection to the Respondent withdrawing a sum of ₹24,310/- without furnishing any security. It was also observed that in total the Petitioner had paid a sum of ₹59,645/- to the Complainant including the legal expenses of ₹10,000/-.
7. It is relevant to note that Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in WP(C) No. 3785 of 2015 dated 16.11.2015 has observed as follows:-
"It is to be noted that Section 17(2) clearly states when the prized subscriber fails to furnish security, the foreman shall deposit the amount in the approved Bank and has to intimate the subscriber. Therefore, if the prized subscriber fails to furnish security before next succeeding instalment, the foreman has a duty to deposit the amount in the Bank. This Court in Yamuna Vs. Kerala State Financial Enterprises [2012(2) KLT 906] also held that the foreman has a duty to deposit the prized amount in the approved Bank mentioned in the variola.
7. In the above circumstances, this Court is of the view that the petitioner is entitled for the amount with interest at the Bank rate. Considering the fact that the rate of interest applicable on the fixed deposit is around 9% this Court is of the view that the petitioner is entitled for the prized amount @ 9% with effect from 15.11.2013. Therefore, the respondents shall pay the amount in accordance with scheme for the prized amount @ 9% with effect from 15.11.2013.
The writ petition is disposed of as above."
8. Both the Fora below have held that KSFE had informed the Complainant with respect to auction on 22.08.2003 itself but held that the KSFE was deficient in their service as chit amount was not paid to the Complainant. It is the case of the KSFE that the Complainant did not provide surety/security.
9. Learned Counsel appearing for the KSFE vehemently contended that both the Fora below have erred in awarding interest on the chit amount which was not paid to the Complainant only because she did not give the security and was defaulted subscriber. Having regard to the fact and circumstances of the case and also that an amount of ₹59,645/- was already paid including the legal expenses to the Complainant and the Judgement of the Hon'ble High Court in which it has been held that after the prized subscriber fails to furnish any security the foreman shall deposit the amount in an approved bank and intimate the same to the subscriber and there is no evidence brought on record by KSFE to establish the same, we are of the view that the amount awarded by the Fora below is justified. Hence this Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
......................J R.K. AGRAWAL PRESIDENT ...................... M. SHREESHA MEMBER