KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSALCOMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

APPEAL Nos. 116/2010 AND 117/2010

COMMON JUDGMENT

DATED: 12.11.2010

PRESENT:-

JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU          :    PRESIDENT

SHRI. S. CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR            :    MEMBER

APPELLANT

1.                A. Vijayarajan,

S/o Kannan, Managing Director,

Prathibha Business Group, Head Office,

Palakunnu P.O.,Bekal, Kassaragod

Sasthamkotta P.O., Kollam.

2.                Thankamani, W/o Vijayarajan,

Teacher, Anganavadi, Mudiakal,

P.O., Bekal,  Kassaragod

3.                Ganga, D/o Chappila,

Managing Director,

Prathibha Business Group,

Head Office, Palakkunnu, P.O.,

Bekal, Kassaragod.

                                      (Rep. by Adv.  Sri. S. Reghukumar,

                                         Adv. S.  Reghumar & Associates)

                             Vs

RESPONDENT

K. Bhaskaran Nair,

S/o Late. Kunhambu Nair,

Udaya Mangalam P.O., Udma,

Hosdurg.

                       (Rep. by Adv. Sri. G.S. Kalkura)

COMMON JUDGMENT

JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU          :  PRESIDENT

The appeals  are filed  by the opposite parties  over the common order in C.C. 214/08 and C.C.  220/08.  Appeal 116/10 is filed over the order in C.C. 214/08 and appeal 117/10 is filed over the order in C.C. 220/08.  The complainant in both the O.Ps are the same person.  The appellants are under order to pay a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- to the complainant with interest at 10% per annum from January 2008 and also to pay Rs. 3,000/- towards cost.

          It is the cause of  the complaint in C,C. 220/08 had made a fixed deposit of Rs. 1,00,000/- in the business organization of the opposite parties on  26.6.2004 on condition that interest at 18% per annum will be paid every month.  Interest was received only till December 2007.  Since January, 2008 no interest is received.  The complainant has claimed the principal amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- and Rs. 13,500/- ie.  interest up to 27.9.2008 and compensation of Rs. 10,000/.- and cost of Rs. 5,000/-

          In C.C. 214/2008, the amount claimed is the principal amount of Rs. 50,000/- and interest of Rs. 6,750/- ie. till 26.9.2008 and also compensation of Rs. 10,000/- and cost of Rs. 5,000/- The date of deposit is 26.12.2007.

          The opposite parties were filed joint  version in the cases  contenting that the deposits were made by the complainant under the Prathibha Real Estate Scheme of the opposite parties and the investment is Rs. 1,50,000/- and   separate certificates were  issued for Rs. 1,00,000/- and Rs. 50,000/- .  It is contented that later the complainant demanded back the money.  On different occasions, the complainant received back more than Rs. 1,00,000/-. The complainant demanded Rs. 25,000/- as interest and the opposite parties were not amenable.  Hence he has not handed over the receipts issued by the opposite parties.  It is contented that complainant is trying  to squeeze a fanciful amount from the opposite parties.  It is stated that the opposite parties were constrained to face some unforeseen bad events   due to the backing of the complainant and also by certain publications and rumors.

Evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PW1. Ext. A1 and A2, B1 and  B2.

Pw1, the complainant has produced and proved Exts. A1and A2,  the Fixed Deposit Receipts issued by the opposite parties  for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- and Rs. 50,000/- respectively.  Pw1 has deposed that in Ex. P1, on earlier renewal the date mentioned against renewal and closing date has been scored, though the date of renewal and the closing date is added in Ext. A2, the date is mentioned as 26.12.2007 and the closing date as 26.1.2009.  The contention of the appellant is based on Exts. B1 and B2 receipts of payment to the complainant.    The opposite parties have applied for getting the above examined by handwriting expert  as the complainant in his deposition  has denied his signature in Exts. B1 and B2.  Subsequently in the counter file, and to the above application he admitted the signatures  in B1 and B2 mentioning that he was perplexed  in the witness box and denied the signatures. The contention of the complainant that in Exts. B1 and B1(0)  has been added subsequently and words  incorporated so as to make the sum of Rs. 7,000/- in Exts. B1 as Rs. 70,000/- and the sum of Rs. 6,675/ as Rs. 66,750/- It is also contented that the words including Interest + Principal Amount ie. for interest and principal amount has been incorporated  subsequently.  It is pointed out that in the preceding lines, only interest is noted.  On a perusal of the writings in Exts. B1 and B2 we find that the contention of the counsel for the respondent/complainant appears true.   Over writings are also in Ext. B2  although there is some discrepancy with respect to the exact interest due.  We find that the circumstances would clearly show that it is totally unlikely that the opposite parties have paid that much of amount  ie. Rs. 70,000 + Rs. 66,750/- without receiving back the original fixed deposit receipts as pointed out by the counsel for the respondent.  The opposite parties have not produced any documents like the Ledger or Day Book to substantiate the case of part payment of principal and interest.  In the circumstances, we find that there is no merit in the contention of the appellant.  Hence both the appeals are dismissed herewith.  The order of the Forum is confirmed.

The office will forward the LCR to the Forum along with copy of this order.  

         JUSTICE. K.R. UDAYABHANU          :  PRESIDENT

                       S. CHANDRAMOHAN  NAIR        :    MEMBER