KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM FIRST APPEAL 684/09 JUDGMENT DATED: 19.4.2010 PRESENT JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER 1. The Managing Director, : APPELLANT Kerala State Financial Enterprises Ltd., Museum Road, thrissur. 2. The Manager, KSFE, Kundara Branch, Kundara. (By Adv.P.K.Venugopal ) Vs. J.Pushpaletha, : RESPONDENT Lethavilasam, Thenguvila Veedu, Padappakkara.P.O., Kollam. JUDGMENT JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The appellant is the opposite party/KSFE in CC.293/06 in the file of CDRF, Kollam. The appellant is under orders to pay a sum of Rs.29,325/- to the complainant with interest at 12% from 13.7.04 and also a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation and Rs.1000/- towards cost. 2. The case of the complainant is that she was the subscriber of the chitty conducted by the opposite parties/appellants. She was remitting the monthly subscription in time. She has given the authorization to the 2nd opposite party, Manager to appear on behalf of her in the drawing of the lots. She subscribed upto 15th instalment. After termination of the chitty she approached the opposite party and it was revealed that at the 8th instalment the chitty was prized in her favour. According to her she was not intimated of the above fact. Further the opposite party offered only as a sum of Rs.9253/-. Hence the complaint seeking refund of the remitted instalments and compensation. 3. According to the opposite parties the fact that she has prized the chitty was intimated to her by registered post. She did not come up to receive the prized amount or offered any surety. 4. The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PW1 and DW1; Exts.P1 to P3 and Exts.D1 to D6. 5. The Forum has considered the evidence adduced in the matter and found that the evidence adduced to establish the fact that the due intimation was given to the complainant stands not proved. The intimation was sent by registered post without acknowledgment card. The address in Ext.D3 only mentions the name of the person and the place of the locality. Ext.D2 the office copy of the letter did not contain the name of the complainant. The evidence of DW1, the Manager was also found to be not trustworthy it appears. In the circumstances and in view of the fact that no patent illegality as such in appreciation of the evidence has been brought up we find that no intereferene as such in the order of the Forum is called for. All the same in view of the fact that the entire amount remitted by the complainant has been ordered is to be refunded with interest without any deduction we find that the order to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- is liable to be reduced to Rs.5000/-. With the above modification in the order of Forum the appeal is disposed of. In the result the appeal is allowed in part as above. Office is directed to forward the LCR to the Forum. JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER ps | 
