KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL No. 937/2015

JUDGMENT DATED: 15.12.2022

(Against the Order in C.C. 320/2012 of CDRF, Kottayam)

PRESENT:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. K. SURENDRA MOHAN              : PRESIDENT

SRI.T.S.P. MOOSATH                                                                   : JUDICIAL MEMBER

SMT. BEENA KUMARY. A                                                          : MEMBER

APPELLANTS:

1. The Managing Director, Kerala State Financial Enterprises Ltd., Bhadratha, Museum Road, Thrissur.

2. The Branch Manager, Kerala State Financial Enterprises Ltd., Baker Junction, Kottayam.

3. The Branch Manager, Kerala State Financial Enterprises Ltd., Nagampadom, Kottayam.

4. The Branch Manager, Kerala State Financial Enterprises Ltd., Anaparambil Buildings, Thalayolaparambu, Kottayam. 

5. The Branch Manager, Kerala State Financial Enterprises Ltd., Kaduthuruthy, Kottayam.

6. The Kerala State Financial Enterprises Ltd., Corporate Office, Bhadratha, Thrissur.

                                        (By Adv. P. Jayapalan Thampi)

                                                Vs.

RESPONDENTS:

1. A.C. Chinnamma, W/o K.J. Thomas, Anna House, Thalayolaparambu P.O., Vaikom Taluk, Kottayam District.

2. K.J. Thomas, Anna House, Thalayolaparambu P.O., Vaikom Taluk, Kottayam District.

(By Adv. C.R. Suresh Kumar)

JUDGMENT

SMT. BEENAKUMARY A. : MEMBER

The appellants are the opposite parties in C.C. No. 320/2012 of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kottayam (District Forum for short).  The respondents are the complainants. The District Forum allowed the complaint.  Hence the opposite parties have filed this appeal.

2.  Brief facts of the case are as follows:  The complainant joined several chitties conducted by the opposite parties and remitted the chitty instalment amounts.  The complainants used to remit the chitty installments through cheques as per Clause 18 (a) of chitty Thalavariyola from the year 2000 to till date.  While so on 01/08/2012, the 1^st opposite party issued a letter to the complainants stating that the chitty installments will be entered into the accounts only if the cheques are encashed.  This was illegal and arbitrary and against the provisions of chitty Thalavariyola.  The opposite parties issued the letter to the complainants only.  There was deficiency in service and unfair trade practice from the side of the opposite parties.    Hence this complaint.

          3.  The notices were served on the opposite parties.  They appeared and filed their versions contending as follows.  It is true that as per the terms and conditions of the chitty Thalavariyola, chittalans are allowed to make payment of the chitty installments through cheques.  Even though such a stipulation is there in the chitty Thalavariyola, there is a specific instruction that the outstation cheques should be cleared within seven days and the local cheques should be cleared within 3 days.  The complainants are having accounts in nationalized and scheduled banks and they used to encash the cheques which were given to them from the K.S.F.E. Ltd. towards prize money, loan amount etc. through these accounts on the same date itself.  But purposefully in order to delay the payments of the amount due to K.S.F.E. Ltd. either as chitty installments or as loan installments to the maximum extent possible, the complainants are issuing cheques of Pallipurathussery Co-operative Bank, which is not a member of clearing house for their chitties and loans and because of this on several occasions in various branches of the K.S.F.E. Ltd. there occurred unreasonably long periods delay ie.  delay of nearly thirty or forty days for getting the cheques encashed.  This was a process repeatedly followed by the complainants and as a result, the K.S.F.E. Ltd.  sustained heavy loss.  So the various branches of the K.S.F.E. Ltd. and their head office people apprised the petitioners about their difficulty several times and asked them to issue local cheques so as to get the amount cleared without delay.  Later on the basis of the complainants’ representation to discuss the matter with the higher officials of the K.S.F.E Ltd at Head office, opportunity was offered to them.  Since the complainants are having several chitty transactions with the various branches of the K.S.F.E. Ltd. considering them as one of the biggest customers of the K.S.F.E. Ltd.  on the basis of their request, the Head office gave a specific direction to all the branches that in the case of cheques presented by the complainants a maximum period of twenty days for encashment would be granted.  Even though such a special leniency and privilege was given to the complainants, they have misused that leniency and had still taken more than a month for clearing the cheques issued.  When the fact that the complainants are making illegal gains on their failure to get the cheques cleared within time as understood by the higher officials of the K.S.F.E. Ltd, the Managing Director sent to the complainants a letter dtd. 01/08/2012 and specifically stated the cheques issued by the complainants would be accounted in the chitty and other loan accounts only when the cheuqes were cashed.  This direction was sent to all the branches of the K.S.F.E. Ltd.  Such a direction was given by the Head office of the K.S.F.E. Ltd. only because of the unfair tricks and tactics followed by the complainants and when it was understood that the intention of the complainants was only to cause undue hardship to the KS.F.E. Ltd.  There was no deficiency in service from the side of the opposite parties.  Hence they prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

            4.  The complainants filed proof affidavit and produced documents which were marked as Exts. A1 to A6.  Opposite parties filed proof affidavit and Exts. B1 to B21 were marked. 

5.  On the basis of the pleadings and evidence adduced by both sides the District Forum found that there was deficiency in service from the side of opposite parties and set aside the disputed letter dated 01.08.2012 which was marked as Ext. A3.  The finding of the District Forum was that as per clause 18(a) of the chitty Thalavariyola the complainants and other subscribers of the opposite parties are entitled to issue cheques for payments of installments of chitties and other loan accounts.  The chitty Thalavariyola is binding on all the subscribers as well as the opposite parties i.e; K.S.F.E.  So the letter issued dated 01.08.2012 is not legally binding to the complainants.  Moreover the opposite parties can amend the Chitty Thalavariyola and incorporate or exempt any terms and conditions of the Chitty Thalavariyola.  Hence the District Forum allowed the complaint and set aside the letter dated 01.08.2012, i.e. Ext. A3.

6.  We have perused the entire documents and heard both sides.  As per Clause (a) of Ext. A1 Variyola the subscribers have to pay the installments by way of cheques, money order etc.  But the respondents misused this facility.  The respondents issued cheques drawn on Pallipurathuseery Co-operative Bank, which is not a member of clearing house for the opposite parties’ chitties and loans. The appellant stated that the respondents have account in nationalized bank.  The opposite parties several times informed the respondents of their difficulties to encash the cheque.  Considering the complainants as valuable customers of opposite parties, a lenient view was taken and granted maximum twenty days for encashment of their cheques as a special case.  But the complainants misused the opportunity and issued the cheques in the same way.  The appellant stated that the time taken for encashment of the cheque was more than a month.  As a result of this attitude of the complainants the opposite parties sustained heavy loss.  For that reason they issued Ext. A3 letter to the complainants. As a public sector financial institution the act of the complainants seriously affected their chitty business.  As per clause B of Thalavariyola it is specifically stated that if the subscribers committed delay for payment of chitty installment the opposite parties have the right to charge interest.  But the opposite parties never charged interest from the complainants though their cheques were cleared usually after the prescribed period.  Hence the opposite parties were constrained to send Ext. A3 letter giving instructions that the cheques issued by the complainants would be accounted in chitty and other loan account only when the cheques were encashed. 

7.  The appellant is a financial institution, the act of the respondents in delaying the payment surely made financial loss.  The appellants have given maximum time to the respondents for the payment. But the respondents were not ready to pay the chitty instalment in time.  For the above said reasons we find that the order passed by the District Forum is not justifiable. So the appeal is to be allowed. 

In the result, the appeal is allowed and the order passed by the District Forum, Kottayam in C.C. No. 320/2012 is set aside.  C.C. No. 320/2012 is dismissed.  No order of costs. 

JUSTICE K. SURENDRA MOHAN  : PRESIDENT

                                          T.S.P. MOOSATH   : JUDICIAL MEMBER

                                                                                                    BEENA KUMARY. A         : MEMBER  

jb