IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ALAPPUZHA
Thursday the 31st day of May, 2022
Filed on 03.9.2021
Present
- Sri.S.Santhosh Kumar. BSc.,LL.B (President )
- Smt. Sholy.P.R .B.A, LLB (Member)
In
CC/No.186/2021
between
Complainants:- Opposite party:-
1. Sri. Emerson C L 1. Kerala Housing Finance Ltd
Chakkungal House, 2nd Floor, Pan African Plaza
Pathirappally P O, M.G.Road, Trivandrum-695001
Alappuzha 2&3 Sri.G Unnikrishnan Nair
2. Smt.Agnus Emerson S/o Govinda Pillai,
-do-do- Managing Director
Kerala Housing Finance Ltd.
M.G.Road, Trivandrum-695001
(Mullasseril House, Chathannopuzha, Kilivayal,Choorakkodu P O, Adoor, Pathanamthitta-691599)
4&5 Komala Unikrishnan, Director
Kerala Housing Finance Ltd.
-do-do-
6&7 Sri N Krishnan Nair
Director cum General Manager,
Kerala Housing Finance Ltd.
Vadakkekara House,
Vazhottukonam, Vattiyurkavu,
Trivandrum – 695013.
8. Sri. N Krishnan Nair,
Ushass, Usha Nivas,
Venjaranmoodu,
Vattiyoorkavu P O
Trivandrum – 695013.
9. Sri. G Sureshkumar, Director,
Kerala Housing Finance Ltd.,
Pan African Plaza, 2nd floor,
M G Road, Trivandrum.
10. Sri.P Parameswaran, Director
Kerala Housing Finance Ltd.,
Pan African Plaza, 2nd floor,
M G Road, Trivandrum.
11. Sri.B Ajithkumar, Director
-do-do-
12. Sri. Shajahan P G, Director
-do-do-
13. Sri. Sureshkumar, Director
-do-do-
14. Sri. R Sukumaran, Director
-do-do-
15. Adv.B. Manmadhan, Director
-do-do-
16. Sri. Bittu Abraham Samuel,
Chartered Accountant,
Trustee, Kerala Housing Finance
Ltd., Pan African Plaza,2nd floor,
M G Road, Trivandrum.
17&18 Smt.Vijayalaskhmi Jayakumar,
Branch Manager, Kerala Housing
Finance Ltd, Alleppey Branch,
Aayirappally House,Muthukulam
South, Mamood Junction,
Kareelakulanagara, Alappuzha
(Adv. R Sankarankutty)
19. The District Police Chief,
Office of the District Police Chief
Alappuzha.
20. The Sub In spector of Police,
Police Station, Pulinkunnu
O R D E R
SMT. P.R SHOLY (MEMBER)
This is a consumer complaint filed under Sec.35 of Consumer Protection Act,2019.
1. Material averments briefly discussed are as follows:-
The complainants had deposited an amount of Rs.7,50,000/- on 4 various dates by purchasing 750 number of secured Redeemable Non-convertible bonds of Rs.1000/- each with the 1st opposite party on the basis of the advise made by one of the former friends of the 1st complainant that deposits in the opposite party company are safe and carries attractive interest more than that offered by other finance institution. The 17th & 18th opposite parties are one and the same who gave a detailed description of the various schemes of the company and promised that if a definite amount is deposited with the 1st opposite party, it necessary, the interest on deposit amount will be paid every month without default and that the deposit amount being the value of bonds will be duly returned on the date of maturity by the 1st opposite party.
2. Accordingly the complainants deposited Rs.7,50,000/- with the opposite parties. However contrary to the promises and offers the 1st opposite party stopped paying interest to the complainant from August 2018 onwards and also failed to release the deposit amount which got matured in spite of repeated requests made by the complainant. In the mean while the complainants along with other depositors filed complaints before various authorities and on the basis of the same the 17th opposite party promised to take personal initiative to settle the matter. However nothing happened. Hence alleging deficiency in service against the opposite parties on account of non-return of the amount deposited by her filed this complaint.
- To refund the amount of Rs.7,50,000/-
- To pay the amount of Rs.1,93,822/- being the arrears of interest till the date of complaint.
- To pay an amount of Rs.2 lakhs for the loss of money.
- To pay an amount of Rs.7 lakhs as compensation.
- To pay an amount of Rs.1 lakhs as cost.
In response to the complaint the 17th and 18th opposite party filed version. Other opposite parties remained exparte.
3. The brief facts of the version filed by opposite party No.17th and 18th are as follows:-
The complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. 17th and 18th opposite party are not personally liable for the alleged claim. It is also contended that 1st opposite party is a company registered and governed under the companies Act. Hence this opposite party is not liable to be proceeded with personally as she was only an employee of the 1st opposite party company. No assurance was ever given by this opposite party to the complainant for making the deposit. The 17th opposite party specifically denied the allegation leveled against her in the complaint that based on the representation/ persuasion of the 17th and 18th opposite party she happened to deposit the alleged amount. The 17th and 18th opposite party has pleaded that she is not liable to the alleged claim and she is incorporated on the party array only to cause annoyance to her and thus prayed for dismissal of the complaint as against her.
4. On the above pleadings the following points raised for consideration:-
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get reliefs sought for in the complaint?
- Whether the 5th opposite party is liable for the transaction?
- Reliefs and cost.
5. Evidence in this case consists oral evidence of PW1 and Ext.A1 to A14 and A15 series on the side of complainant. No oral as well as documentary evidence adduced by contesting 5th opposite party.
6. Point No.1 to 3
Admittedly the PW1 and his wife had deposited Rs.7,50,000/- to the 1st opposite party which evidenced by Ext.A15 series bond. The 1st opposite party company and its directors were served notice of the original complaint and they did not appear and file any version. As contented by the 17th opposite party the jural relationship of debtor and creditor is between the complainant and 1st opposite party which seems from Ext.A15 series. The terms and conditions of the contract entered into between complainant and 1st opposite party is embedded in Ext. A15 series. More over there is a specific recital in Ext. A15 series bond that on the basis of the application submitted by the complainant before the Board of Directors of the 1st opposite party, the Ext. A15 series bond was allotted. The said fact is admitted by PW1 while he was cross examined by the counsel appearing for the 17th and 18th opposite party. The said recital in Ext. A15 series is the substratum of the contract. It is to be noted that such a stipulation in the written contract made between the complainant and 1st opposite party itself debars the complainant from raising a contention that upon the instigation of the 17th and 18th opposite party the complainant deposited the amount covered under Ext.A15 series bond. More over such an allegation in the complaint is against the terms of the contract embedded in Ext.A15 series bond. In this connection it can be safely concluded that the allegation leveled against the 17th and 18th opposite party in the complaint is hit by parole evidence rule as contained in S.91 and 92 of Indian Evidence Act. The 17th and 18th opposite party, being an employee of the 1st opposite party, constituted and governed under the Companies Act is not personally liable to discharge the liability of the 1st opposite party. Hence based on the pleadings and evidence tendered in the case, 17th and 18th opposite party is not liable to the grievance alleged by the complainant, but the 1st opposite party being a financial institution incorporated as per the provisions of the Companies Act and other opposite parties 2 to 15 are its Managing Director and directors, hence they are bound to abide by the terms and conditions assured by them. But they have committed breach of promise as well as deficiency in service towards the complainant. Therefore opposite parties 1 to 15 are jointly and severally liable to discharge the liability and to pay compensation to the complainant.
7. Point No.4
Accordingly we allow the complaint in part and direct as follows:-
- The opposite parties 1 to 15 are jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.7,50,000/- with interest @ 10% per annum from the date of complaint till realization to the complainant.
- Opposite parties 1 to 15 are directed to pay Rs.1,93,822/- to the complainants being the arrears of interest till the date of complaint.
- The opposite parties 1 to 15 are jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation to the complainant.
- Complainant is entitled Rs.5,000/- as litigation cost from opposite party 1 to 15.
The order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her corrected by me and pronounced in open Commission on this the 31st day of March, 2022.
Sd/-Smt. P.R.Sholy (Member)
Sd/-Sri.S.Santhosh Kumar (President)
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - Emerson C L (Witness)
Ext.A1 series - Copy of cancellation of Registration certificate of NHB
Ext.A2 series - Copy of Assurance of MD to depositors
Ext.A3 - Copy of Certificate of SEBI bans Kerala Housing Finance raising funds from
public
Ext.A4 - Press release of Mathrubhumi dated 31. 8. 2019
Ext.A5 - Copy of Assurance dtd 04.1.19
Ext.A6 - Assurance dtd 09. 6.19
Ext.A7 - Petition before DGP dtd 08.1.21
Ext.A8 - Petition before MLA, Kuttanadu on 08.7.21
Ext.A9 - Docket No.ASG210102993 on 27.1.21
Ext.A10 - Reply Notice on 29. 1.21
Ext. A11 - Temporary Receipts
Ext,A12 - Postal Receipt on 22. 8. 20
Ext.A13 - A/D Card
Ext.A14 - Copy of the Note on 30.9.21
Ext.A15 - Bond paper
Evidence of the opposite parties:- Nil
// True Copy //
To
Complainant/Oppo.party/S.F.
By Order
Assistant Registrar
Typed by:- Sa/-
Compared by:-
