DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PALAKKAD

Dated this the 12^th day of September 2013 

Present: Smt.Seena.H, President

            : Smt.Preetha.G.Nair,   Member

            :  Smt.Bhanumathi.A.K, Member                 Date of Filing : 28/01/2013

 

M.C.Rugmani,

W/o.C.Kandan,

Vallath Veedu,

Thekkeparambu,

Puduppariyaram (PO),

Palakkad – 678 731

(By Party in Person)                            -                  Complainant

 

        Vs 

The General Manager,

District Industries Centre,

Palakkad

(By Govt.Pleader)                               -                  Opposite party

 

 

Order by Smt.Preetha.G.Nair, Member

 

 

Complainant availed 15 cents landed property from opposite party on hire purchase agreement for starting a small scale industry for her livelihood.  Initially complainant paid a total amount of Rs.28,594/-. Agreement was dated 09/5/2005. As the complainant could not start the unit within the agreed period, plot was taken back by the opposite party on 19/07/07. Thereafter several times complainant requested for return of the deposited amount orally and through letters. As per the agreement amount has to be returned simultaneously. A notice dated 10/12/12 was issued through Kerala Consumer Protection Centre to opposite party for which a belated reply was issued stating that further proceedings will be taken only after receiving the final order in the case pending before the Court. According to the complainant the delay in the refund of the amount entitled to her is gross deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. As per the Hire Purchase Act if the opposite party had recovered the land will be returned the deposited amount with the amount spent to the complainant. The opposite party has not taken steps to refund the amount to the complainant. The act of opposite party amounts to deficiency in service. Hence the complainant prays an order directing the opposite party to pay Rs.1,99,640/- as the deposited amount with interest, cost of construction and compensation for deficiency in service.

         

Opposite party filed version stating the following contentions. The complainant was to abide the conditions and formalities as prescribed by the Govt.as per the circular G.O.(MS)169/69/10 dated 5/4/1969. The complainant has agreed to abide the conditions and the prevailing rules and affixed signature of the agreement entered into between them. The complainant failed to start the industry in time and the opposite party had to resume the land as per the Govt. rules. The complainant never acted as per the terms and conditions of the Govt.order or the agreement. The opposite party submits that Hire Purchase Act is not applicable to this matter.

 

The opposite party has personally and by letter explained the complainant the actual true facts and what is the law under the Act, which is bound by the complainant. The cheating case as CC/73/2007, Crime 38/2007 of Town South Police Station pending against the complainant and her husband. There is no consumer relationship as defined in the Act. The complainant has no right in law to get Rs.28,594/-as the refund amount, Rs.18,872/- towards the interest and Rs.52,174/- towards developments, since she has not made any developments nor any construction. The complainant has never developed an industry or has taken a small step to start a unit as per the terms and conditions entered into between the opposite party.

 

It is true that an extent of 15 cents of land was allotted to the complainant for starting a Bakery product manufacturing unit. She had remitted 20% of the cost of land and executed agreement on 9/5/2005 and took possession. The allottee has not started the unit and kept the land idle till 2007. As per the land allotment rules, if the allottee does not start construction of building or make any improvement of appreciable nature on the land allotted within a period of six months and further extension of time has not been given by the competent authority in this regard, the land shall be resumed possession. Accordingly the land allotted to the complainant was resumed as per the office order No.1/1030/2005 dated 19/07/2007. The party has also requested to refund the amount remitted towards the land value. On verification of the challans for the balance cost of land, it was suspected that signature and office seal were forged and the head of account was also written wrongly. Accordingly a case was registered against the complainant. There was no latches on the part of opposite party. Hence they prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with compensatory cost.

Complainant and opposite party filed affidavits. Ext.A1 to A15 marked on the side of complainant. Ext.B1 marked on the side of opposite party. Argument notes filed by both parties. Both parties examined as PW1 and DW1.

Matter heard.

Issues to be considered are

1.    Whether the complaint is maintainable before the Forum ?

2.    Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party ?

3.    If so, what is the relief and cost ?

 

Issue No.1 found in favour of the complainant as per the order in I.A.186/2013.

 

 

Heard both parties and perused relevant documents on record. Admittedly an extent of 15 cents of land was allotted to the complainant for starting a Bakery product manufacturing unit and remitted Rs.28,594/-. It is evident from Ext.A1 along with the copy of challan that the land allotted to the complainant and remitted Rs.28,594/- to the opposite party. In Ext.A2 the opposite party had resumed the land and stated that the land cost admissible will be refunded as per rules. Moreover in Ext.A2 the opposite party stated that as per the condition of the land allotment rules the allottee shall utilize the land within a period of six months and on field verification, it was seen that the land has been lying idle ever since allotment. At the time of cross examination complainant has deposed that unitXpS§phm\mbn Xd sI«nbncp¶p. 2007 emWv ]Wn sNbvXp sIm­ncp¶Xv.  Moreover the complainant has produced Ext.A11 and Ext.A12 to show that construction materials purchased and the work is started. No contradictory evidence produced by the opposite party. In Ext.A10 letter dated 18/01/2006 and 16/04/2006 shown that the work of the construction is started and demanded to convert the firm in partnership. Ext.A10 letter given to the opposite party stating that the construction work is restrained by some people. At the time of cross examination complainant deposed that complaint given to opposite party for restraining the work. In Ext.A15 the opposite party has sent a letter dated 22/7/2006 to transfer the construction materials to the place allotted her. On the available evidence it is considered that the complainant has not started the bakery unit, but she has started the construction work for bakery unit. In Ext.A2 the opposite party stated that the land cost admissible will be refunded as per rules. In Ext.A5 the order dated 30/7/12 of the court of chief Judicial Magistrate Palakkad stated that “the accused are acquitted Under Section 248(1). Thereafter the complainant sent a letter dated 12/11/2012 to the opposite party to demand the amount of Rs.28,594/- In Ext.A7 the letter dated 7/01/13 the opposite party stated that the further action will be taken after receiving the order of the court.

In Ext.A8 shown that Kerala Consumer Protection Center issued notice dated 10/12/12 to the opposite party to demand the amount with interest. But the opposite party has sent reply letter dated 7/1/13 to them stating that further action will be taken after receiving the order of the court. According to the complainant the reply given by the opposite party to the complainant after 60 days from the letter given by her. But the complainant has not produced evidence to show that the opposite party has given reply after 60 days. According to the complainant Rs.52,174/- spent to construct the bakery unit. But the complainant has not produced evidence to show that Rs.52,174/- spent for construction of bakery unit on the property allotted by the opposite party.

 

On the available evidence we considered that the opposite party has not refunded the amount after resumed the land. It is evident from Ext.A2 that the opposite party has repossessed the land on 19/7/2007. In the above discussions we are of the view that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. In the result complaint partly allowed. We direct the opposite party to pay the complainant an amount of Rs.28,594/- as the amount remitted with interest at the rate of 10% from 19/07/2007 to date of order along with Rs.1,000/- as cost of proceedings.

 

 

Order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of order, failing which the complainant is entitled for 9% interest per annum for the whole amount from the date of order, till realization.  

 

Pronounced in the open court on this the 12^th  day of September  2013.   

    Sd/-

Seena H

President

  Sd/-

Preetha G Nair

Member

  Sd/-

Bhanumathi.A.K.

Member

 

 

 

Ext.A1 – Photocopy of Proceeding GM, DIC dated 9/5/2005  

Ext.A2 – Photocopy of Proceeding GM, DIC dated 19/7/2007   

Ext.A3 – Photocopy of notice sent by complainant to opposite party

             dtd. 29/7/07  

Ext.A4 – Photocopy of letter submitted by complainant under RI Act.  

Ext.A5 – Photocopy of CJM Court Order in CC.73/2007

Ext.A6 – Photocopy of letter sent by complainant to opposite party

            dtd.12/11/2

Ext.A7 – Photocopy of letter sent by opposite party to the complainant

            dated 7/1/2013

Ext.A8 – Photocopy of letter sent by Kerala Consumer Protection Centre to

             opposite party dated 10/12/12

Ext.A9 – Photocopy of letter sent by opposite party to Kerala Consumer

             Protection Centre

Ext.A10 – Photocopy of letter sent by complainant to the opposite party

Ext.A11 – Statement of account showing details   cost for supplying materials

Ext.A12 – True copy of agreement between complainant and opposite party

Ext.A13 – Letter sent by Addl.Chief Secretary to the complainant

              dated 27/8/10

Ext.A14 – Reply given by opposite party to the complainant under RI Act

Ext.A15 – Photocopy of letter sent by opposite party to the complainant dated

              22/7/06

 

Ext.B1 –Photocopy of Govt.Order No.G.O.MS.169/69/1D dated 5/4/1969

 

PW1 – M.C.Rugmini

 

DW1 – Simon Zacharia

 

Rs.1,000/- allowed as cost of the proceedings.