D.O.F. 06.06.2007

D.O.O. 05.10.2010

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KANNUR

Present:      Sri.K.Gopalan                   :                President

                   Smt. K.P.Preethakumari             :               Member

                            Smt.M.D.Jessy                  :                Member

Dated this the 5^th day of October,  2010

C.C.No.108/2007

C. Radha, W/o. Rajan,

Chettiantavide House,

P.O. Koorara,  (Via) Chambad                                         :   Complainant   

1. A. Mukundan,

    S/o. Kelu Master, Bindu Nivas,

    P.O. Koorara, (Via) Chambadu                                  

2. K. Manoharan,                                                

    Jayasree Store,

    P.O. Koorara, (Via) Chambadu

3. C.P. Sreedharan,       S/o. Anandan Master,

    Anand Floor Mill, P.O. Koorara, (Via) Chambadu       :  Opposite parties         

    (Rep. by Adv. Roopesh M.P. for OP 2 &3)                                               

4.  Girija K., W/o. Mukundan

5.  Shaji A., S/o. Mukundan

6.  Bindu A., D/o. Mukundan

     (All are residing at Bindu Nivas, P.O. Koorara,

     (Via) Chambadu, Kannur District)                  

O R D E R

Sri. K. Gopalan, President

          This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act for an order directing the opposite party to pay due amount of Rs.5500/- with interest at the rate of 18% interest from 09.07.2007 till the payment and also to pay the cost.

          The case of the complainant in brief are as follows :  Complainant became a subscriber of the chitty of Merchant Welfare Society, Koorara.  It was under Kerala Vyavasaya Ekopana Samithi, where opposite party 1 is the president, opposite party 2 is the Secretary and opposite party 3 is the Treasurer.  The chitty has been conducted in the name of Podu Jana Sambarka Kshemanidhi.  She has remitted Rs.100/- as weekly subscription from 25.09.1999 to 09.07.2001.  The payment was made through the bill collectors and they entered the amount in the card issued by Merchants Welfare Society.  Complainant attempted to take chit by bid but the opposite party discouraged it by telling this and that. On enquiry she could understand that the earlier bidders were not given auction amount. Complainant approached several times for the amount but they did not pay the amount.  Complainant has paid Rs.5500/- and the card issued by opposite party is produced.  Complainant prays for an order directing the opposite party to pay the amount as claimed by the complainant.

          Pursuant to the notice opposite party 2 & 3 appeared but subsequently being remained absent their names were called in open Forum and set exparte.   But opposite party 2 & 3 later on filed petition to set aside the exparte order and thus allowing the petition they were allowed to participate in the proceedings.  Opposite party 1 reported dead and the legal heirs were impleaded.  Opposite party 2 and 3 filed version denying all the allegations of the complaint.  The brief facts of the contents of version are as follows :  The complainant is not a consumer and this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.   It is also barred by limitation. She has to approach the Civil Court for realization of money if any amount is due to her.  As per the allegation complainant paid money on 09.07.2001 finally hence steps should have been taken before expiry of limitation.  These opposite parties do not have any sort of relationship with the Merchants Welfare Society, Koorara.  These opposite parties did not conduct any chitty or collect any money. The brother of the complainant’s husband Sugathan was a salesman in th deceased 1^st opposite party’s shop. Sugathan was denied employment due misconduct.  These opposite parties were close associates with Mukundan.  It is because of the hostility this complaint is filed by the complainant.  These opposite parties understand that the Merchants welfare Society was dissolved in the year 2001 and all the assets and liabilities were assessed and all those who were entitled to get money from the society was paid and discharged the entire liability.  After laps of several years of its dissolution complainant has filed the complaint without showing the Merchants Welfare Society as party and including these opposite parties who are unnecessary parties.  The complainant or any mediators never approached for any purpose.

          On the above pleadings the following issues have been taken for consideration.

1.     Whether the complaint is maintainable?

2.     Whether there is any deficiency on the part of opposite parties?

3.     Whether the complainant is entitled for the remedy as prayed?

4.     Relief and cost ?

The evidence consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and Ext.A1.  No oral or documentary evidence adduced by opposite parties.

Issues 1 to 4 :

          The case of the complainant is that she paid Rs.100/- each every week as a subscriber of chitty conducted by Merchants Welfare Society, Koorara.  The claim amount is Rs.5,500/-  Complainant alleges that she approached opposite parties several time even with mediators but they did pay the amount.  Opposite party 2 and 3 contented that complaint is barred by limitation and this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. She has to approach civil court.

          Complainant filed chief affidavit in lieu of Examination-in-chief.   It is in time with the pleadings.

          Ext.A1 is the most important document that reveals complainant is the subscriber of the chitty and she has made payment from 25.09.1995 to 09.07.2001.  The card shows that she has subscribed a total amount of Rs.5,500/-.  In the chief affidavit complainant has stated thus “ta tee-¡p-dn-bn ]cm-Xn-¡mcn 25.09.1999 to 09.07.2001 hsc 100 cq] hoX-T............. \nt£]n¡p-I-bpT sNbvXn-cp¶p ”.  The period of chitty has not been mentioned anywhere.  Anyhow, it is an admitted fact that the last payment made by complainant in 09.07.2001.  That means the chitty started 2 years before.  So the total period of chitty is almost at the end.  Of course there may be few more months. But this complaint is lodged in the year 06.06.2007.  The gap between the last payment and the date filing of the complaint is 6 years.  Hence the contention of opposite parties that the complaint is barred by limitation hold good and there is no evidence to show that the complaint is filed within the time.  Even the period of chitty is not mentioned anywhere in the complaint or in chief affidavit.  Ext.A1 marked upto hundred. Even if the subscription fixed Rs.100/- weekly the total period comes to an end within two years.  Anyhow it is sure and certain that there is no scope for coverage of four more years to get over the question of bar of limitation.   Complainant failed to establish her case that she has filed the complaint within the limitation period.  In the cross examination complainant has deposed that “25.09.1999   emWv Ipdn BZ-y-am-bn- tNÀ¯-Xv. Pqsse 2001 hsc AS¨p. Ipdn 3 hÀj-t¯-¡m-bn-cp-¶p. 1999 apX 2001 hsc- B-bn-cp¶p Ipdn”.  No more evidence is required to come into conclusion that this complaint as it is brought is barred by limitation.  Hence we are of opinion that the complainant is not entitled to get any remedy from this Forum since the complaint is barred by limitation.  Hence issue No.1 is found against complainant.

          Since it is found that the complaint is barred by limitation there is no need to go deep into the subject matter in answering other points that may arise in other issues.

          In the result, the complaint stands dismissed. No cost.

                            Sd/-                     Sd/-                    Sd/-

President              Member                Member

APPENDIX

Exhibits for the Complainant

A1.  Daily collection card bearing endorsement from 25.09.1999 to

       09.07.2001.

Exhibits for the opposite party

Nil

Witness examined for the complainant

PW1.  Complainant

Witness examined for opposite party

Nil

                                                                          /forwarded by order/

                                                                     SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT