Date of filing : 28-06-2010
Date of order : 30 -09-2011
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD
CC. 152/2010
Dated this, the 30th day of September 2011
PRESENT
SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT
SMT.P.RAMADEVI : MEMBER
SMT.K.G.BEENA : MEMBER
Ghanashyam Prasad.U, } Complainant
S/o. Late Upendra kamath,
Shyam Sadanam, Badiyadukka,
Near Police Quarters,
Po.Badiyadukka, Perdala, Kasaragod.Dt.
(In Person)
1. The Branch Manager, } Opposite parties
K.S.F.E. Ltd, Branch Uppala,
Po.Uppala.
(Adv.K. Kumaran Nair, Kasaragod)
2. Subraya Ramachandra Shet,
Head Master,
Navajeevana High School, Perdala.PO,
Badiyadukka.
(Adv.M.Narayana Bhat. Kasaragod)
O R D E R
SMT.P. RAMADEVI, MEMBER
The facts of the case in brief are as follows:
That the complainant joined in a chitty conducted by 1st opposite party for a monthly subscription of `5000/-. As per the terms of the chitty the complainant has to pay the amount either directly to 1st opposite party or any other branch of 1st opposite party or any branch of District Co-operative Bank. The complainant paid the amount every month without any fault. When the chitty was prized Smt. Latha Bai and one Smt. Shailaja both are teachers working under 2nd opposite party stood as sureties for the complainant for releasing the chitty amount. Subsequently the first opposite party directed the 2nd opposite party to recover the salary from the sureties on account of non-payment of monthly chitty instalments. The complainant approached the 2nd opposite party and produced all the payment receipts of the chitty instalments and informed that there is no amount as due. Eventhough the 2nd opposite party convinced that there is no amount due, the 2nd opposite party harassed the sureties. Meanwhile complainant approached the 1st opposite party and informed that he has not made any default and shown all the receipts also. But the 1st opposite party not ready to accept his version. Then the complainant obtained the details of default made by him from the 1st opposite party which shows from 18-11-2009 to 30-03-2010 the instalments fell due. According to the complainant he paid the amounts on 8-10-2009, 26-11-2009, 26-12-2009. 1-2-2010 and 27-02-2010 respectively in time, hence there is no amount is due. The act of opposite parties is deficiency in service hence this complaint is filed for necessary relief.
2. On receipt of notice from this forum both opposite parties appeared through counsels and filed their versions separately.
3. The opposite parties denied all the allegations made against them by the complainant. According to 1st opposite party the complainant is a subscriber of chitty.XI0.10/07. The complainant substituted the original subscriber of the chitty above mentioned on 3-11-2007 by remitting two instalments, second and third instalments. The monthly instalments due on 18th of every month. On 10-01-2008, the complainant availed a new chitty loan of `1,00,000/- out of the said chitty by executing security bonds by Smt. Latha Bai and Smt. Shailaja on strength of their salary certificate and confirmation issued by their drawing officer, the 2nd opposite party. The complainant was not regular in paying monthly instalments. On 10-03-2008 he paid three instalments for the month of January, February and March 2008. He defaulted the subsequent instalments also. The chitty was prized by the complainant on 28-10-2008 and the prize money was paid to him on 10-12-2008 after executing the security bond by the complainant, Smt. Latha Bai and Smt. Shailaja. But after receiving the prized chitty amount, the complainant failed to pay the monthly instalments. Then the 1st opposite party had issued repeated notices to the complainant as well as to the sureties asking them to pay the dues but they failed to clear the dues. That is why the 1st opposite party issued notice to 2nd opposite party for recovery of the dues from the salary of the sureties. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the 1st opposite party and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
4. According to 2nd opposite party as a drawing and disbursing officer he acted as per law. He recovered the amount of `2500/- each from Smt. Latha Bai and Smt. Shailaja, the sureties of complainant after receiving notice as well as reminders from1st opposite parties stating that the complainant defaulted the instalments. 2nd opposite party further submits that the Government of Kerala has issued a notification dated 12-01-1996 which sates that “all drawing officers shall ensure that recoveries are effected towards default made to KSFE without fail” He is acting inaccordance with law. There is no deficiency in service in his part.
5. The evidence in this case consists of the evidence of PW1, the complainant and Exts A1 series to A4 documents. Opposite party No.1 is examined as DW1 Exts. B1 to B8 and X1 documents marked.
6. After considering the facts of the case and perusal of documents the following issued were raised for consideration.
7 1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the side of the opposite parties?
2. If so, what is the order as to costs and compensation?
8. Here there is no dispute regarding the subscription of chitty by the complainant, prizing of the chitty and executing surety bond by the sureties. The specific case of the complainant is that he is not a defaulter of the monthly instalments of chitty. The opposite parties unnecessarily harassed the complainant alleging he is a defaulter. In order to prove his case he produced Exts A1 series. Ext.A1 series consists of 15 receipts, 14 receipts among are receipt of payment of instalments. 15th receipt dt.20-12-2008 is the transfer chalan receipt issued by 1st opposite party. 1st opposite party admitted all the above mentioned payments made by the complainant. But their contention is that the complainant has to pay the chitty instalment 18th of every month. The complainant fails to do so. The Ist opposite party cannot adjust the late payments on 18th of every month. Moreover, according this 1st opposite party the complainant is also liable to pay many dues. In order to substantiate their contention 1st opposite party produced Ext.B8 statement of accounts (After payment of prize money) which shows the instalment numbers. Due date, date of remittance, Date of adjustment, amount due, interest, actual amount to be remitted, debts and credits. Here 14 receipts in Ext.A1 series are compared with and Ext.B8 and it is seen that instalment numbers 18 to 30 and instalment No.38 are tallying that means all payments made by the complainant is entered and adjusted. On verification it is found that the complainant has not paid the instalment on due dates and that is why interest was imposed on him by the 1st opposite party as per the terms and conditions of the chitty. Here the Forum is of the opinion that the complainant himself made the default and 1st opposite party acted lawfully. Hence we are of the opinion that there is no deficiency in service on the part of 1st opposite party.
9. Then the Forum has to look into whether 2nd opposite party committed any deficiency in service. From the above discussion and on verifying the documents it is found that the complainant is a defaulter. If a subscriber of a chitty is irregular in making the chitty instalments. It is the bound and duty of the 1st opposite party to recover the amount from the sureties.
10. According to the 2nd opposite party he discharged his duties as a drawing and disbursing officer. When the complainant defaulted the chitty instalments the 2nd opposite party was directed to recover the amount from the salaries of the sureties. For that the 2nd opposite party received letter as well as reminders from the 1st opposite party. He recovered the amount from the salaries of sureties and he directly paid the amount to the 1st opposite party. He submitted all the receipts before the Forum. He also produced the letter and reminder issued by 1st opposite party. The complainant has no case that the amount recovered by the 2nd opposite party is used for his personal purpose or he recovered more than the amount what is required. The complainant’s case that the 2nd opposite party harassed and insulted the sureties. But there is no evidence before the Forum that the 2nd opposite party insulted and harassed the sureties. As a duty conscious office while discharging his duty if anybody felt insult he will not liable for it. He had done what he ought to have done. Here the act of the 2nd opposite party acting officially is no way amounts to deficiency in service. Hence she is not liable to compensate the complainant.
11. From the above discussion it is clear that there is no merit in the complaint hence the complainant is not entitled any relief sought for.
Therefore the complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exts.
A1. Series (15 Nos) receipts issued by OP No.1.
A2. Photocopy of ledger.
A3.4-5-2010 certificate issued by Kasaragod Dist.Co.-op. Bank
A4. Photocopy of Acquittace roll
B1 series receipts.
B2. 18-11-2008 confirmation letter issued by OP No.1 to OP No.2.
B3& B4. 8-6-2009 Letters issued by OP No.1 to OP No.2.
B5. 26-3-2010 letter Issued by OP No.1 to OP No.2.
B6. 9-12-2010 letter issued by OP No.1 to OP No.2.
B7. Copy of Government Order.
B8. Statement of Accounts (After payment of Prize Money)
PW1. Ganasham Prasad
DW1.P. Mohandas.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Pj/ Forwarded by Order
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
