Branch Manager,Pearless General Finance And Invest V/S AJ Antony,Advocate - Consumer Court Case

Kerala

Wayanad

76/2004

AJ Antony,Advocate - Complainant(s)

Versus

Branch Manager,Pearless General Finance And Invest - Opp.Party(s)

12 Mar 2008

ORDER

CDRF Wayanad
Civil Station,Kalpetta North
consumer case(CC) No. 76/2004

AJ Antony,Advocate						...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
Branch Manager,Pearless General Finance And Invest P Sainudheen						...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

1. K GHEEVARGHESE 2. SAJI MATHEW

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

ORDER

By Sri. K. Gheevarghese, President: The complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. The complaint in brief is as follows. The Complainant has taken an endowment certificate for a period of 10 years from the Opposite Party for an amount of Rs. 15,000/- and paid Rs.2,000/- as the initial deposit on 02.03.1995. The terms of the payment was such that the balance amount of Rs.8,000/- has to be paid in ½ yearly installment of Rs.500/- and the last installment has to be paid on 02.09.2003, except the last three installments, the other installments were remitted. The last three installments were delayed for the reason of the non payment of receipts towards the amount paid. On 9.01.2004 the Complainant sent his junior to the office of the Opposite Party to remit the amount. The Opposite Party demanded the presence of the Complainant himself to - 2 - make the payment. Whereas the Complainant instead of approaching the Opposite Party directly sent the amount of Rs.1,500/- by a cheque drawn on the State Bank of Tranvancore, Kottapally Branch to the Opposite Party on 21.4.2004. The cheque sent was returned to the sender with a letter stating that the endowment certificate cannot be renewed as per clause 3 of the certificate. The Opposite Party had not received the amount from the Complainant though they were approached in time. The entire amount due from the Complainant was remitted within a period of 8 ½ years out of 10 years. The Opposite Party could have condoned the delay of 42 days on the penalty of interest at the rate of 15%. The Complainant was also ready to make the payment. The Opposite Parties intention is to advantage the certificate as the discontinued one in order to make unlawful gain. The Opposite Party has a collection center at Meenangady and it has business transaction in Wayanad District. There may be an order to pay the balance amount to the complainant as per the certificate with interest at the compound rate of 18% per annum from 11.5.2005 to the Complainant along with cost and compensation. The Opposite Party filed version. It is contended that the Complainant is not a consumer within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act. The endowment certificate of Rs. 15,000/- is purchased by the Complainant on the payment of Rs.2,000/- on 02.03,1995 which is admitted by the Opposite Party. The allegation of the Complainant that the Opposite Party did not issue receipts for the payment in time is denied by the Opposite Party. All these are alleged by the Complainant only for the sake of complaint alone. The Complainant made all the payments except the payment on 30.6.1998 are made by cheques. The payment on 30.6.1998 was made by the demand draft. The amount remitted by the Complainant were properly accounted and receipts were given on payment. The allegation on the part of the Complainant that in order to make the last payment the Junior of the Complainant was sent (Contd......3) - 3 - to the office are absolutely false. Instead of sending demand draft as usual to the earlier payment sending a messenger for the payment of the amount is ambiques. The amount was not remitted in time within the statutory period, according to the 3 condition of the endowment certificate the discontinued certificate can be revived only within the period of 9 years from the date of acceptance of certificate. The Opposite Party can receive the amount only up to 02.03.2004 as per the terms and conditions. The Opposite Party received cheque only on 24.4.2004 and the same was returned being the Opposite Party was statutorily prevented from receiving the amount after 9 years on the date of acceptance of certificate. More over the Opposite Party is not in a position to condone the delay. Being the terms and conditions are agreed bilaterally both are bound by the rules and regulations of it. The cheque was sent to the Opposite Party while the certificate was in the period of discontinuity. The allegation of unfair trade practise is only on baseless ground. The Opposite Party is entitled for the compensatory cost. The Opposite Party has no collection center at Meenangadi. If any dispute arise, according to the norms agreed it can be settled or adjudicated in Calicut Forum. No transaction effected in Wayanad District. This Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint. The Opposite Party's acted in good faith in accordance with the rules and regulations of the scheme and followed the principle of bilateral agreement. The Complainant on the other side is ill motivated and there is no bonafide intention in the complaint. The complaint is to be dismissed with compensatory costs. The points in consideration are. 1.Is there any deficiency in service or unfair trade practise on the part of the Opposite Party?. 2.Relief and costs. (Contd.......4) - 4 - Points No.1 and 2: The Complainant is examined as PW1. Ext.A1 is the Ten Year Welfaire Endowment Certificate issued to the Complainant. Ext.A2 series 3 in numbers are the receipts of renewal deposit. The Complainant had drawn a cheque of Rs. 1,500/- on 21.4.2004 in favour of the opposite Party in order to make the payment of last 3 installments. The cheque was returned to the Complainant with the letter and that is sent to the Complainant along with cheque which is marked as Ext.A6 series. The Complainant cannot substantiate in evidence that the Opposite Party had refused to receive the amount if it was sent in time. The testimony of the Complainant that it was not known to him the terms and conditions of the endowment certificate for its continuity cannot be considered. The clause 3 of the endowment certificate reads a discontinued certificate may be revived at any time before 9 years from the date of an acceptance on payment of all dues together with a compound interest 15% per annum on arrear deposit amount subject to a minimum of Rs.1 no favour of interest shall be allowed under any circumstances. According to the clause 3 the certificate can be revived before 9 years on the payment of all dues along with interest at the rate of 15%. The Complainant has not revived discontinued certificate within the period of stipulated time. From the above inferences it is held that the Complainant could not make payments as per the terms of the certificate for revival. The points 1 and 2 are in favour of the Opposite Party. In the result, the complaint is dismissed without any cost. Pronounced in open Forum on this the 12th day of March 2008.

By Sri. K. Gheevarghese, President: The complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. The complaint in brief is as follows. The Complainant has taken an endowment certificate for a period of 10 years from the Opposite Party for an amount of Rs. 15,000/- and paid Rs.2,000/- as the initial deposit on 02.03.1995. The terms of the payment was such that the balance amount of Rs.8,000/- has to be paid in ½ yearly installment of Rs.500/- and the last installment has to be paid on 02.09.2003, except the last three installments, the other installments were remitted. The last three installments were delayed for the reason of the non payment of receipts towards the amount paid. On 9.01.2004 the Complainant sent his junior to the office of the Opposite Party to remit the amount. The Opposite Party demanded the presence of the Complainant himself to - 2 - make the payment. Whereas the Complainant instead of approaching the Opposite Party directly sent the amount of Rs.1,500/- by a cheque drawn on the State Bank of Tranvancore, Kottapally Branch to the Opposite Party on 21.4.2004. The cheque sent was returned to the sender with a letter stating that the endowment certificate cannot be renewed as per clause 3 of the certificate. The Opposite Party had not received the amount from the Complainant though they were approached in time. The entire amount due from the Complainant was remitted within a period of 8 ½ years out of 10 years. The Opposite Party could have condoned the delay of 42 days on the penalty of interest at the rate of 15%. The Complainant was also ready to make the payment. The Opposite Parties intention is to advantage the certificate as the discontinued one in order to make unlawful gain. The Opposite Party has a collection center at Meenangady and it has business transaction in Wayanad District. There may be an order to pay the balance amount to the complainant as per the certificate with interest at the compound rate of 18% per annum from 11.5.2005 to the Complainant along with cost and compensation. The Opposite Party filed version. It is contended that the Complainant is not a consumer within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act. The endowment certificate of Rs. 15,000/- is purchased by the Complainant on the payment of Rs.2,000/- on 02.03,1995 which is admitted by the Opposite Party. The allegation of the Complainant that the Opposite Party did not issue receipts for the payment in time is denied by the Opposite Party. All these are alleged by the Complainant only for the sake of complaint alone. The Complainant made all the payments except the payment on 30.6.1998 are made by cheques. The payment on 30.6.1998 was made by the demand draft. The amount remitted by the Complainant were properly accounted and receipts were given on payment. The allegation on the part of the Complainant that in order to make the last payment the Junior of the Complainant was sent (Contd......3) - 3 - to the office are absolutely false. Instead of sending demand draft as usual to the earlier payment sending a messenger for the payment of the amount is ambiques. The amount was not remitted in time within the statutory period, according to the 3 condition of the endowment certificate the discontinued certificate can be revived only within the period of 9 years from the date of acceptance of certificate. The Opposite Party can receive the amount only up to 02.03.2004 as per the terms and conditions. The Opposite Party received cheque only on 24.4.2004 and the same was returned being the Opposite Party was statutorily prevented from receiving the amount after 9 years on the date of acceptance of certificate. More over the Opposite Party is not in a position to condone the delay. Being the terms and conditions are agreed bilaterally both are bound by the rules and regulations of it. The cheque was sent to the Opposite Party while the certificate was in the period of discontinuity. The allegation of unfair trade practise is only on baseless ground. The Opposite Party is entitled for the compensatory cost. The Opposite Party has no collection center at Meenangadi. If any dispute arise, according to the norms agreed it can be settled or adjudicated in Calicut Forum. No transaction effected in Wayanad District. This Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint. The Opposite Party's acted in good faith in accordance with the rules and regulations of the scheme and followed the principle of bilateral agreement. The Complainant on the other side is ill motivated and there is no bonafide intention in the complaint. The complaint is to be dismissed with compensatory costs. The points in consideration are. 1.Is there any deficiency in service or unfair trade practise on the part of the Opposite Party?. 2.Relief and costs. (Contd.......4) - 4 - Points No.1 and 2: The Complainant is examined as PW1. Ext.A1 is the Ten Year Welfaire Endowment Certificate issued to the Complainant. Ext.A2 series 3 in numbers are the receipts of renewal deposit. The Complainant had drawn a cheque of Rs. 1,500/- on 21.4.2004 in favour of the opposite Party in order to make the payment of last 3 installments. The cheque was returned to the Complainant with the letter and that is sent to the Complainant along with cheque which is marked as Ext.A6 series. The Complainant cannot substantiate in evidence that the Opposite Party had refused to receive the amount if it was sent in time. The testimony of the Complainant that it was not known to him the terms and conditions of the endowment certificate for its continuity cannot be considered. The clause 3 of the endowment certificate reads a discontinued certificate may be revived at any time before 9 years from the date of an acceptance on payment of all dues together with a compound interest 15% per annum on arrear deposit amount subject to a minimum of Rs.1 no favour of interest shall be allowed under any circumstances. According to the clause 3 the certificate can be revived before 9 years on the payment of all dues along with interest at the rate of 15%. The Complainant has not revived discontinued certificate within the period of stipulated time. From the above inferences it is held that the Complainant could not make payments as per the terms of the certificate for revival. The points 1 and 2 are in favour of the Opposite Party. In the result, the complaint is dismissed without any cost. Pronounced in open Forum on this the 12th day of March 2008.

......................K GHEEVARGHESE
......................SAJI MATHEW