K.S.F.E V/S Jayadhar .V - Consumer Court Case

Kerala

StateCommission

150/2007

Jayadhar .V - Complainant(s)

Versus

K.S.F.E - Opp.Party(s)

S.Laila

19 Oct 2010

ORDER

First Appeal No. 150/2007

(Arisen out of Order Dated null in Case No. of District Kollam)

1. Jayadhar .V

Sreevihar, 145-Mathruka Nagar, Uliyakovil P.O, Kollam.

BEFORE:
	Sri.M.V.VISWANATHAN PRESIDING MEMBER

PRESENT:

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

VAZHUTHACAUD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL NO.150/2007

JUDGMENT DATED 19.10.2010

PRESENT

SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN -- MEMBER

SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN -- JUDICIAL MEMBER

SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA -- MEMBER

Jayadhar.V,

Sreevihar,

145-Mathruka Nagar, -- APPELLANT

Uliyakovil P.O, Kollam District.

(By Adv.S.Laila)

Vs.

1. M/s.Kerala State Financial Enterprises Ltd.

Bhadhratha, P.B.No.510, Museum Road,

Thrissur, Kerala, Pin.680 020.

Reptd. by its Managing Director.

2. The Branch Manager, -- RESPONDENTS

Kerala State Financial Enterprises Ltd.,

Kadappakkada Branch, Kadappakkada.P.O,

Kollam, Kerala.PIN 691 008.

3. The Managing Director

Kerala State Financial Enterprises Ltd.,

Bhadhratha, P.B.No.510. Museum Road,

Thrissur, Kerala, PIN 680 020.

(By Adv.P.K.Venugopal & Ors.)

JUDGMENT

SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN,JUDICIAL MEMBER

Appellant was the complainant and respondents were the opposite parties in CC No.128/06 on the file of CDRF, Kollam. The complaint therein was filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in withholding a sum of Rs.2,045/- while closing the fixed deposit of Rs.70,000/-. Thus, the complainant claimed refund of Rs.2,045/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of closure of the FD (13.2.06) with compensation and costs.

2. The opposite parties entered appearance and filed written version denying the alleged deficiency in service. They contended that the FD was closed by deducting the amount due to the opposite party/KSFE from the complainant towards the chitty transaction with respect to Chitty No.23/01 Chital No.3 of the KSFE, Kadappakada Branch. Thus, the opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3. Before the Forum below, the complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts.P1 to P8 documents were marked on his side. From the side of the opposite parties DW1, Asst. Manager of KSFE, Kadappakada Branch, was examined. Exts. D1 to D7 documents were also marked on the side of the opposite parties. On an appreciation of the evidence on record, the Forum below accepted the case of the opposite parties and thereby dismissed the complaint in CC.No.128/06. Hence, the present appeal by the complainant therein.

4. We heard the appellant/complainant who appeared in person and also the counsel for the respondents/opposite parties. We also heard the accountant who was summoned to appear before this Commission with relevant documents related to the transaction between the appellant/complainant and the second respondent/second opposite party, Kadappakada Branch, KSFE. The appellant submitted his arguments based on the grounds urged in the memorandum of the present appeal. He much relied on the documentary evidence from his side and argued for the position that the second opposite party un-necessarily deducted the amount from his FD amount of Rs.70,000/-. He alleged deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in not releasing the entire FD amount of Rs.70,000/-. It is further submitted that the respondents/opposite parties adopted unfair trade practice by extending the fixed deposit on 18.4.05 without the consent and information of the deposit holder, the complainant. It is also submitted that the opposite parties/KSFE unauthorizedly without justification reduced the rate of interest from 9.5 % to 4.5 %. Thus, the appellant/complainant prayed for setting aside the impugned order passed by the Forum below and to allow his complaint in CC.No.128/06 on the file of CDRF, Kollam. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents/opposite parties supported the impugned order passed by the Forum below. He argued for the position that the appellant/complainant was sitting idle when the fixed deposit matured on 18.4.05 and that the opposite party/KSFE extended the fixed deposit for another 3 years because of the fact that the aforesaid fixed deposit was given as security for the future installments of the prized chitty No.23/01. It is further submitted that the appellant/complainant was given the rate of interest which was prevailing at the relevant time and that the rate of interest was reduced by 1% because of the premature withdrawal of the fixed deposit. Thus, the respondents prayed for dismissal of the present appeal.

5. There is no dispute that the appellant/complainant was a subscriber of Chitty No.23/01. He was allotted Chital No.3 of the Kadappakkada Branch of KSFE. Admittedly, the aforesaid chitty was prized in the name of the complainant and the prized chitty amount of Rs.70,000/- was deposited by way of fixed deposit for a period of 3 years. The aforesaid fixed deposit was made by way of security for payment of future installments for the said Chitty No.23/01 which was prized in the name of the complainant. The fixed deposit was matured on 18.4.05. The rate of interest fixed for the FD was 9.5%. It is to be noted that on maturity of the FD on 18.4.05, the appellant/complainant being the deposit holder did not take any step to get the said FD renewed or to withdraw the fixed deposit amount by giving further security for payment of future installments of the prized Chitty No.23/01. Admittedly, the appellant/complainant approached the second opposite party, the Manager, Kadappakkada Branch, KSFE only on 5.9.05. No reasonable explanation is forthcoming from the side of the appellant/complainant for his failure to get the FD renewed or in giving fresh security for the future installments to be remitted towards the prized chitty No.23/01. The second opposite party is justified in extending the aforesaid fixed deposit for a further period of 3 years. The case of the appellant/complainant that there was deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties in renewing the aforesaid fixed deposit without the consent or knowledge of the deposit holder cannot be upheld.

6. The fixed deposit of Rs.70,000/- was renewed with effect from 18.4.05 for a further period of 3 years. There can be no dispute about the fact that the prevailing rate of interest at the time of renewal of the fixed deposit on 18.4.05 was 6.5 %. The claim of the appellant/complainant that he should get the earlier rate of interest of 9.5% for the renewed FD cannot be accepted. The opposite parties are justified in giving the prevailed rate of interest for the renewed fixed deposit. The aforesaid claim for enhancing rate of interest cannot be allowed.

7. There was an understanding between the appellant/complainant and the second respondent/second opposite party (Kadappakkada Branch of KSFE) to adjust interest on the fixed deposit towards the installments of the prized chitty. Thus, the initial monthly interest accrued on the said fixed deposit was Rs.5,054/-. Admittedly, the complainant/subscriber was remitting the balance amount only towards the subscription for the prized chitty. But, after 18.4.05 the rate of interest on the FD has been reduced to 6.5%. Then naturally, the appellant/complainant being the subscriber had to remit higher amount by way of balance amount towards the monthly subscription for the prized chitty. So, some amounts were due to the KSFE towards the subscription for the prized chitty. The officials of the opposite party/KSFE are entitled to claim the balance amount due from the appellant/complainant being the subscriber of the prized chitty. More over, the appellant/complainant closed the fixed deposit transaction prematurely. As per the prevailing practice in KSFE, there will be reduction of interest rate by 1% for premature withdrawal of FD. Thus, the opposite party/KSFE are justified in calculating the rate of interest at 4.5% on the FD of Rs.70,000/- because of the premature withdrawal of the fixed deposit. The appellant/complainant has also got a case that he insisted for renewal of the fixed deposit with effect from September 2005. It is to be noted that the fixed deposit matured on 18.4.05. It is rather impossible to keep the fixed deposit idle from 18.4.05 to September 2005. It may be true that the interest rate during September 2005 was 7.5%; but the fixed deposit was renewed as early as on 18.4.05. So, the request made by the appellant/complainant to get the fixed deposit renewed on 30.9.05 cannot be allowed. Likewise, the opposite party/KSFE is also justified in deducting an amount of Rs.69/- as banking cash transaction tax (BCTT). Thus, the respondents/opposite parties have given a proper calculation for deducting Rs.1020/- from the fixed deposit amount of Rs.70,000/-.

8. The accountant of the second respondent/second opposite party came with the ledger account and other supporting materials. He convinced this Commission about the manner in which the deduction was effected from the fixed deposit amount of Rs.70,000/-. Thus, the respondents/opposite parties are justified in disbursing a sum of Rs.68,986/- to the complainant by way of the fixed deposit amount. The accountant of the second opposite party also tried his level best to convince the appellant/complainant about the calculation of the amounts and also about the calculation of the rate of interest. But, the appellant/complainant was very adamant on his stand. The available evidence would show that the Forum below has rightly dismissed the complaint in CCNo.128/06. The appellant/complainant failed to substantiate his case regarding the alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the respondents/opposite parties. We have no hesitation to dismiss the present appeal and to confirm the impugned order dated 27.1.07 passed by CDRF, Kollam in CC.No.128/06.

In the result, appeal is dismissed. The impugned order passed by the Forum below is confirmed. As far as the present appeal is concerned, the parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.