IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATHANAMTHITTA,
Dated this the 18th day of June, 2011.
Present : Sri. Jacob Stephen (President).
Sri. N. Premkumar (Member)
Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member)
C.C.No.228/11 (Filed on 26.11.2011)
Between:
G. Sugathan,
Sangamam,
Chemmanisseril,
Kotta. P.O., Karakkad,
Pin – 689 504.
(By Adv. Shaji Varghese) ….. Complainant
And:
1. Branch Manager,
KSFE, Aranmila Branch.
2. Regional Manager,
KSFE, Quilon.
3. Managing Director,
KSFE, Thrissur,
Museum Road,
Pin – 680 020.
(By Adv. K.T. Thomas for opps. 1 to 3) ….. Opposite parties
O R D E R
Sri. K.P. Padmasree (Member)
The complainant has filed this complaint against the opposite parties for getting a relief from this Forum against the opposite parties.
2. Complainant’s case is that he is a customer of the opposite parties and he is a subscriber in chitty No.3/11-A7 having a sala of ` 3 lakhs conducted by the 1st opposite party. The complainant bid the said chitty for ` 2,68,000 and he received ` 66,000 on 17.10.2011 so far he had paid ` 1,10,000 for getting the balance amount the 1st opposite party directed the complainant to furnish security. Accordingly he had given all relevant documents in respect of 94 cents of land as security for the chitty amount. But the opposite parties denied the payment by saying untenable objection for accepting the proposed security property. He bidded the chitty for getting money for some important needs because of the non-payment of chitty amount he had sustained a loss of `10,05,000. On enquiry by the complainant he realized that opposite parties are earning profit by investing amount entitled by the customer like the complainant. The above said act of the opposite party is a clear deficiency in service and they are liable to the complainant for the same. Hence this complaint for realizing `10,05,000 from the opposite parties.
3. Opposite parties entered appearance and filed their versions. 1st and 2nd opposite parties filed a joint version and 3rd opposite party riled a separate version. The contentions raised in both versions are one and the same and hence we are not writing the contentions separately. The main contentions of all opposite parties are as follows. The complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. Opposite parties admitted that the complainant is a subscriber in chitty No.3/11-7, having a sala of ` 3,00,000. Complainant bid the chitty for `2,68,000 and from the prize money ` 66,704 has been paid to the complainant and the balance of ` 2 lakh is deposited with the 1st opposite party for 90 days. For the payment of the above ` 2 lakh before the termination of the chitty the complainant has to provide sufficient security to the satisfaction of the opposite parties as per the terms of ‘variola’. Complainant offered 38.20 Ares of wet land in Kidangannoor village owned and possessed by his wife, as security. The ‘variola’ signed by the complainant clearly and specifically stipulated certain conditions for releasing prize money.
(a) The property offered as security should have independent convenient way to enter the property.
(b) The property should have double value of the liability and the value of the property is assessed by the officers of the opposite parties.
(c) Property should have prospects and potential for sale and purchase.
(d) The property should well defined identifiable boundaries.
4. The 1st opposite party who conducted the inspection of the property offered and submitted the valuation report stating that the property is wet land and most of the year it is covered by water. There is no proper way to reach the property except a small ‘varambu’ and the property is not having a well defined identifiable boundaries and it has very little market value and is situated 5 meter below the pampa irrigation canal bund. On enquiry with the concerned S.R.O, Aranmula it is found that the value fixed and notified by the Govt. for the property offered as security is only ` 1,000 per Ares. In the variola it is also specified that if any dispute arises regarding the sufficiency of security, the valuation of the Tahsildar has to be accepted. Although the complainant was aware of the above position he has not produced any valuation certificate obtained from Tahsildar.
5. K.S.F.E is a Govt. undertaking financial institution and its financial transactions have to be in accordance with the rules and regulations and its officers are bound to do its business with strict rules and regulations. The total value of the property as per the rate fixed by Govt. is only ` 38,000 whereas the liability to be secured is `1,90,000. Usually opposite parties are accepting properties having double the value of the liability. The documents produced by the complainant reveal that the property is a nilam. The 1st opposite party issued a letter dated 25.11.2011 intimating the result of valuation and requested to provide other securities. Again on 30.11.2011 a registered letter was also sent to the complainant for repeating the reasons for not accepting the property and also requested to take back the documents produced by him. The non-acceptance of the property is with valid reasons. Opposite parties have rendered all possible service to the complainant and never committed any deficiency in service. Hence opposite parties canvass for the dismissal of the complaint with compensation and cost.
6. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the only point to be considered is whether this complaint can be allowed or not?
7. Evidence of this complaint consists of the oral testimony of PW1, DW1 and Ext.A1, A2 and B1 to B10. After closure of evidence, both sides were heard.
8. The Point:- The complainant’s case is that he is a subscriber in chitty No.3/11-7/11 having a sala of ` 3 lakhs conducted by the 1st opposite party. The complainant bid the chitty for ` 2,68,000 and he received ` 68,000. For getting the balance amount the 1st opposite party directed the complainant to furnish security. As per their direction all relevant documents in respect of 94 cents of land is furnished as security. But opposite parties denied the payment by saying untenable objection, therefore the complainant sustained huge financial loss. It is a clear deficiency in service from the part of the opposite parties and they are liable to the complainant.
9. In order to prove the complainant’s case, complainant filed a proof affidavit in lieu of his chief examination along with 2 documents. On the basis of the proof affidavit complainant was examined as PW1 and the documents produced by him were marked as Exts.A1 and A2. Ext.A1 is the valuation certificate of the proposed land, prepared by the valuator of S.B.T. Ext.A2 is the photocopy of sale deed No.503 dated 07.04.2011.
10. On the other hand, the contention of the opposite party is that for the disbursement of the balance chitty amount the complainant has to provide sufficient security to the satisfaction of the opposite parties as per ‘variola’. The offered property is wet land covered by water. There is no proper way to reach the property except a small ‘varambu’ and it has very little market value and on enquiry with the concerned S.R.O it is found that the value fixed by the government for the property offered as security is only Rs.1,000 per Ares. So the property offered cannot be accepted as the assessed value is less than the liability. Therefore opposite parties denied the payment on accepting the proposed property. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
11. In order to prove the contention of the opposite parties, 1st opposite party filed a proof affidavit in lieu of his chief examination along with the documents. On the basis of the proof affidavit, 1st opposite party was examined as DW1 and the documents produced by the opposite party was marked as Ext.B1 to B10. Ext.B1 to B3 were marked through PW1 and other through DW1. Ext.B1 is the photocopy of Kerala Gazette regarding final fair value of land published by R.D.O’s. Ext.B2 is the letter send to the complainant by the 1st opposite party. Ext.B3 is the ‘variola’ of KSFE. Ext.B4 is the terms and conditions for realizing chitty amount. Ext.B5 is the valuation report of the proposed property. Ext.B6 is the photocopy of Kerala Gazette notification regarding fair value of land. Ext.B7 is the photocopy of sale deed dated 16.01.1995. Ext.B8 is the location sketch dated 02.11.2011. Ext.B9 is the photocopy of possession certificate dated 21.11.2011. Ext.B10 is the letter sent by the 1st opposite party to the complainant.
12. On the basis of the contentions and arguments of the parties, we have perused the entire materials on record and found that parties have no dispute with the chitty transaction. The only dispute between the parties is with regard to the value of the property offered by the complainant as security for the prize money. According to the complainant it is having sufficient value for releasing the price money whereas the opposite parties contention is that the property offered is not having sufficient value for releasing the price money. The rights and liabilities of the parties in a chitty transaction are governed as per the terms and conditions stipulated in the ‘variola’. In this case, the ‘variola’ executed between the parties is produced and marked as Ext.B3. None of the parties can go beyond the terms and conditions of the ‘variola’. As per Clause 17(a) of Ext.B3 ‘variola’ it is clearly stated that in case of any dispute about the value of the property offered as security, the valuation certificate obtained from the local Tahsildar can be accepted. But in this case, the complainant has not obtained and produced a valuation certificate from the local Tahsildar as per Clause 17(a) of the Ext.B3 ‘variola’. Instead he produced a valuation certificate before the Forum obtained from the valuator of S.B.T. As per the terms and conditions of Ext.B3 ‘variola’, opposite parties are legally bound to accept their own valuation certificate or the valuation certificate of the local Tahsildar. So Ext.A1 valuation certificate and A2 sale deed are not relevant in the dispute between the parties. So we cannot find any deficiency of service from the opposite parties in rejecting the property offered by the complainant as security for the prize money. Hence this complaint is liable to be dismissed.
13. In the result, this complaint is dismissed. No cost.
Declared in the Open Forum on this the 18th day of June, 2012.
(Sd/-)
K.P. Padmasree,
(Member)
Sri. Jacob Stephen (President) : (Sd/-)
Sri. N. Premkumar (Member) : (Sd/-)
Appendix:
Witness examined on the side of the complainant:
PW1 : G. Sugathan
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:
A1 : Photocopy of the valuation certificate of the proposed land, prepared by
the valuator of S.B.T.
A2 : Photocopy of sale deed No.503 dated 07.04.2011.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties:
DW1 : Baiju. V
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties:
B1 : Photocopy of Kerala Gazette regarding final fair value of land published by
R.D.O’s.
B2 : Photocopy of letter dated 25.11.2011 sent by the 1st opposite party to the
complainant.
B3 : ‘Variola’ of KSFE.
B4 : Terms and conditions for realizing chitty amount.
B5 : Valuation report of the proposed property.
B6 : Photocopy of Kerala Gazette notification regarding fair value of land.
B7 : Photocopy of sale deed dated 16.01.1995.
B8 : Photocopy of location sketch dated 02.11.2011.
B9 : Photocopy of possession certificate dated 21.11.2011.
B10 : Letter dated 30.11.2011 sent by the 1st opposite party to the complainant.
(By Order)
(Sd/-)
Senior Superintendent.
Copy to:- (1) G. Sugathan, Sangamam, Chemmanisseril, Kotta. P.O.,
Karakkad, Pin – 689 504.
(2) Branch Manager, KSFE, Aranmila Branch.
(3) Regional Manager, KSFE, Quilon.
(4) Managing Director, KSFE, Thrissur, Museum Road,
Pin – 680 020.
(5) The Stock File.
