By Sri.P.K.Sasi, President:
The case of the complainant is that he has joined 3 numbers of pooval kuri conducted by the opposite party as chitt No.24. Two numbers (111,112) were in his name and one(101) was his wife’s name. All the chitties were conducted by complainant himself. Chitty no.101 and 111 were auctioned. He deposited 2 lakhs rupees with the opposite party. At the time of depositing amount the opposite party has promised to the complainant, that if any instalments of the chitties were not paid by the complainant that will be paid by the opposite party using the interest of the deposit amount or by deducting amount from deposit. Believing that complainant has deposited the amount. Complainant has also issued a letter to the opposite party requesting them to remit the instalments by using interest of the deposit and by withdrawing amount form deposit. That was accepted by the opposite party and they agreed to remit the instalments of ticket no.112 also.
2. Whereas, for denying the dividend to the complainant the opposite party deliberately made the chitties dues without paying the instalments as agreed by them. Moreover, to defeat the complainant the opposite party stopped sending chitty instalment intimations to the complainant that amounts to unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties. Because of the act of the opposite party the complainant sustained unnecessary financial loss and mental agony. Therefore, lawyer notice was sent on 18/6/09 by the complainant whereas the opposite party issued a reply notice stating fault allegations. The opposite parties failed to keep the chitties by paying instalments utilizing the deposit amount and its interest. Hence this complaint is filed.
3. On being noticed on the complaint the opposite party entered appearance through counsel and filed detailed version. In their version the 3 number chitties joined by the complainant and out of that auctioning of two numbers, deposit of 2 lakhs are also admitted by the opposite party whereas, it is stated by the opposite party that the complainant deposited 2 lakhs as security for ticket no.111 alone. There was no charge created upon the sequrity deposit relating to the chitty no.101. The opposite party is liable to pay instalments of chitty no.111. Whereas, they have no liability regarding payment of instalments of other 2 number chitties. The opposite party further stated in their version that according to the terms of the kuri security deposit they have remitted the instalments of chitty no.111 were paid and as per the statement dated 26/10/10, the balance in deposit amount became Rs.1,72,000/- and the opposite party is entitled to get Rs.4,015/- from the complainant as debit amount. Opposite party strictly denied that the complainant has given a letter to the opposite party requesting him to pay the instalments of all the 3 number of chitties. The opposite party further submitted that they have agreed with the complainant to make any payments towards the ticket no.112 by realizing amount from the deposit. They also stated in their version that they have replied for the lawyer notice stating all the real facts and reasons. The opposite party further contended that they have not committed any sort of unfair trade practice towards the complainant and prayed for dismissal of complaint with compensatory cost.
4. Then the case was posted for evidence and the
points for consideration was that:-
1). Whether there was any unfair trade practice
committed by the opposite parties
2). If so, what cost and relief.
5. From the side of complainant he has filed proof affidavit in which he has affirmed and stated all the allegations raised in the complaint in detail. He produced 3 documents which are marked as Ext.P1 to Ext.P3. Ext.P1 copy of lawyer notice issued by the complainant, dtd.18/6/09, Ext.P2 reply notice received from opposite party, dtd.25/6/09 and Ext.P3 A/D card.
6. From the side of opposite party litigation clerk of the opposite party filed counter proof affidavit for and on behalf of opposite party and he has affirmed and stated all the contentions raised in the version in detail. 2 documents also produced and marked as Ext.R1 and Ext.R2. Ext.R1 is a computer generated statement of chittis and Ext.R2 copy of the reply notice, dtd.25/6/09.
7. The complainant was examined as PW1 and he was thoroughly cross examined by counsel for the opposite party. In the cross examination he has stated that he has deposited Rs.2,00,000/- for remitting the instalments of 2 number chitties. He further stated that the opposite party has not given any documents regarding deposit amount. He also denied that he has defaulted instalments in chitty no.101. The complainant further denied a suggestion put by the counsel regarding O.S.165/11 civil case pending before principal sub court Thrissur. The complainant admitted in cross examination that he has not produced the copy of the letter mentioned in the complaint regarding the request made by him to the opposite party to pay instalments of all chitty from the deposit amount.
8. One Mr. Shekar. Litigation clerk of opposite party is examined RW1 and he was cross examined in detail by the counsel for the complainant. In cross examination he has stated that the complainant has submitted a written request before the opposite party for considering the deposit as kuri security deposit for chitty no.111 alone and he also admitted that request is not produced before the Forum.
9. Complainant and opposite party filed argument notes. We have perused the evidences adduced from both sides as well as the contents of the documents submitted and heard in detail.
10. The case of the complainant is that he has joined 3 number of chitties with the opposite party and out of that 2 chitties were auctioned and he deposited an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- with the opposite party for paying the future instalments of all chitties, incase, the complainant could not make payments of instalments properly. The opposite party did not acted as per the promise given to the complainant and made 2 number of chitties defaulted by not paying the instalments by using the deposit amount. Moreover, the opposite party did not send chitty instalment intimation to the complainant and thereby denied the dividend which he is entitled to get. The act of the opposite party amounts to unfair trade practice.
11. Whereas, the opposite party contented that the complainant has deposited 2 lakhs as a kuri security deposit on chits no.111 alone. They have made payments of defaulted instalments of that chitty properly by using interest and amount of that deposit. They have no liability to pay instalments of other two numbers of chitties. Moreover, opposite party submitted that there was civil case pending before the sub court for realizing the default of amount from the complainant.
12. Since there is a specific allegation raised by the complainant that he has entrusted Rs.2,00,000/- with the opposite party as a deposit for making payments of 3 number of chitties, the opposite party ought to have been produced the details of deposit before the Forum. It is also admitted in the cross examination that the complainant has given a written request regarding the deposit. At least that would have been produced before the Forum. Except the R1 statement nothing is produced, no details regarding the civil case is also produced.
13. The burden is upon the complainant to prove that the opposite party has committed unfair trade practice. There is no case for the complainant regarding deficiency in service. The Ext.R1 statement would go to show that the opposite party provided fixed discount and auction discount along with bonus to the complainant in all the 3 chitties. Therefore, the complainant could not prove that the opposite party denied the benefits of dividend to him. There is no evidence before us to show that the complainant has sustained any sort of damages or mental agony.
14. Considering the points discussed hereinabove, we are of the opinion that the complainant has failed to prove his case with cogent proof.
15. In the result we dismiss this complaint without cost.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, this the 18th day of September 2015.
