CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM
Present
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President
Sri. K. N. Radhakrishnan, Member
CC No. 280/2010.
Thursday, the 27th day of October, 2011.
Petitioner : 1) T.M. Mathew,
Thuruthikkara
Thalayolaparambu P.O
Vaikom, Kotayam
2) Lissy Mathew,
--do—
(By Adv. P.V Krishnakumar)
Vs.
Opposite parties : 1) The K.S.F.E. Ltd.
Thalayolaparambu
reptd. by its Branch Manager.
(By Adv. Anie C. Kuruvilla)
2) The Spl. Tahsildar,
KSFE Ltd.,
K.O Varghese Memorial Building, Baker Junction,
Kottayam.
O R D E R
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President
Case of the petitioner filed on 9..10..2011 is as follows:
Petitioner is a subscriber of the Chitty No. SDT 6014, SDT 6015, SDT 5997 conducted by the opposite party. Petitioner ouctioned the chitty. As security, petitioner had given his 3.95 Are’s of property in survey 389/44 of Vadayar Village. According to the petitioner opposite party without adjusting the amount remitted by the petitioner requested for RR proceedings to opposite party No. 2. Petitioner on 24..9..2009 approached the government and 50 monthly installments facility was availed. Later petitioner remitted some amounts to the opposite party but
opposite party has not adjusted the same. Petitioner filed WPC No. 10799/2010 before the Hon’ble High Court. Hon’ble High Court also availed installments facility to the petitioner. On 18..6..2010 petitioner remitted an amount of Rs. 20,000/-
-2-
in compliance of the order of Hon’ble High court. According to the petitioner opposite party has not adjusted the actual amount, which is remitted by the petitioner. Petitioner alleges deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Petitioner prays for a direction to the opposite party to give statement of accounts. He also claims compensation in the tune of Rs. 20,000/- and the cost of proceedings.
1st Opposite party entered appearance and filed version contenting that petition is not maintainable. According to the opposite party the petition is hit by section 72 (2) of RR Act. First opposite party admitted the fact that the petitioner was a subscriber of the first opposite party. The chitty number of the petitioner is 7/06 and chital number is 33 the sala of the chitty is Rs. 50,000/- and monthly installment to be paid was Rs. 1,000/- . The chitty was commenced on 27..5..2006 and it was
terminated on 12..6..2010. The above chitty was auctioned on 12..10..2010 for Rs. 38850/-. After receiving the price money only 2 installments were remitted by the petitioner and was a defaulter from 12..3..2007. The notice intimating the default was served on 6..6..2007. On 20..6..2008 Revenue Recovery was initiated When the RR was initiated petitioner approach the Revenue Minister. Minister allowed monthly installments. Later petitioner approach the Hon’ble High Court and the Hon’ble High Court allowed installment. Even though petitioner obtained installments facility he is not ready to remit the amount. The present petition is only a
dilatory tatics adopted by the petitioner just to drag Revenue Recovery Proceedings initiated against the petitioner. According to the first opposite party petition is to be dismissed with their costs.
Second opposite party filed version contenting that the petition is not maintainable. According to the second opposite party the RR proceedings are initiated as per law and there is no deficiency in service on their part and they pray for dismissal of the petition.
Points for determinations are:
i) Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?
ii) Relief and costs?
Evidence in this case consists of affidavit filed by both parties and Ext. A1
to A5 documents on the side of the petitioner and Ext. B1 to B 6 documents on the side of the opposite parties.
-3-
Point No. 1
The relief claimed by the petitioner is that opposite party is directed to issue statement of account to the petitioner. Admittedly RR proceedings were initiated against the petitioner. Hon’ble Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Appeal No. 840/98 stated that when the demand has been made for the RR proceedings. No relief can be granted without holding that RR proceedings were not sustainable under law. The jurisdiction to question RR proceedings vest with Civil Court that too only on limited ground. Further more the present petition is hit by section 72 (2) of RR Act. So, point No. 1 is find accordingly.
Point No. 2
In view of finding in point No. 1, petition is dismissed.
Dictated by me, transcribed by the Confidential Assistant, corrected by me and
pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 27th day of October , 2011.
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President Sd/-
Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member Sd/-
APPENDIX
Documents for the petitioner:
Ext. A1: Copy of the letter Dtd: 24..6..2009 issued by the Principle Secretary to
District Collector, Kottayam.
Ext. A2: Copy of letter Dtd: 6..2..2010 issued by the second opposite party to
the petitioner.
Ext. A3: Copy of RR notice.
Documents for the Opposite party
Ext. B1: Certified copy of the personal ledger in chitty 7/06
Ext. B2: Certified copy of the personal ledger in chitty 3/06
Ext. B3: Certified copy of the personal ledger in RCL 464/06
Ext. B4: Certified copy of the ledger in RR file No. 5997
Ext. B5: Certified copy of the ledger in RR file No. 6014.
Ext. B6: Certified copy of the ledger in RR file No. 6015.
By Order,
Senior Superintendent
