Kerala

Idukki

CC/180/2019

jothish V a - Complainant(s)

Versus

kerala State Financial enterprises ltd - Opp.Party(s)

19 Sep 2022

ORDER

DATE OF FILING : 16.10.2019

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, IDUKKI

Dated this the  19^th  day of  September, 2022

Present :

                    SRI. C. SURESHKUMAR                   PRESIDENT

SMT. ASAMOL P.                               MEMBER

SRI. AMPADY K.S.                            MEMBER

CC NO.180/2019

      Between

Complainant                                        :   JyothishV.A., S/o. Appukkuttan,

                                                               Vayalil House,

                                                               Karimpan, Idukki.

    (By Adv: Litty M.M.)

        And

Opposite Party                                     :  The Manager,

                                                                 Kerala State Financial Enterprises Ltd.,

                                                                 Cheruthoni,

                                                                 Idukki Colony P.O.

    (By Adv: N.K. Vinodkumar)

 

O R D E R

 

SRI. C. SURESHKUMAR, PRESIDENT

 

          This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 (the Act, for short).  Complainant averments are briefly discussed here under:

 

          Complainant had subscribed for a chitty conducted by the Cheruthoni Branch of Kerala State Financial Enterprises Ltd., which is the 1^st opposite party herein.  In May, 2019, complainant had successfully bid for the chitty.  Prize amount was Rs.4,21,256/-.  1^st opposite party has to disburse the chitty amount on 7.6.2019.  However, opposite party had without any reasons, refused to give prize money to the complainant,though complainant had gone to the office of 1^st opposite party on 07/06/2019.Thereafter it was disbursed to him only on 10.6.2019.    Subsequently complainant was informed that delay in payment of chitty prize money was owing to lack of staff.  Complainant had entered into an agreement with one Biju Varghese, for purchase of a scooter on 15.4.2019.  Complainant had given an advance of Rs.20,000/- towards the said transaction to aforesaid Biju Varghese.  Remaining amount of Rs.1,55,000/- was to be paid on 8.6.2019.  Complainant had planned to pay this amount from the prize money,                                                                                                                 (cont….2)

• 2  -

which was to be paid to him on 7.6.2019.  As prize money was not given to him in time, complainant was unable to pay the remaining sale prize and had therefore forfeited the advance amount paid to Biju Varghese.  Apart from this financial loss, complainant had also suffered disrepute as he was unable to keep his word and this has caused mental agony to him.  There is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party.  Complainant therefore prays for an award of Rs.20,000/- from opposite party towards loss of advance amount and also seeks compensation of Rs.50,000/- for deficiency in service and Rs.5,000/- as litigation cost from opposite party.

 

          Opposite party had entered appearance and filed written version.  Its contentions are briefly discussed hereunder :

 

          Opposite party admits that complainant had indeed subscribed for a chit of Rs.5 lakhs, conducted by it and that complainant had auctioned it successfully in May, 2019.  Prize amount payable was Rs.4,21,256/-. Opposite party submits that it was prepared to pay him prize money provided the complainant fulfills conditions of bringing sufficient sureties or offering other property as security.  However, complainant had not turned up with sureties on 7.6.2019 for execution of bond.  Therefore amount was disbursed to him on the next working day, which was on 10.6.2019, 8.6.2019 and 9.6.2019 being holidays, when he had come with Government employees as his sureties. Upon execution of bond and execution of necessary documents, prize money was disbursed to him on that date itself.  Opposite party submits that there was no delay in payment of prize amount to complainant.  No excuses were made by opposite party and nor was any explanation given that belated disbursement is due to lack of staff. Opposite party submits that 8.6.2019 was 2^nd Saturday and 9.6.2019 was a Sunday.  Opposite party runs its business in accordance with the rules framed by Government and directions given by both Central and State Governments from time to time.  No inordinate delay was occasioned in disbursement of prize amount to complainant.  As per repayment agreement clause 15 (a), prize amount is to be disbursed after 30 days of auction and thereafter within 60 days.  As there is no deficiency in service, complaint is to be dismissed with costs.

 

          After filing of written version, case was posted for evidence after affording sufficient opportunity to both sides to take steps.  Despite availing repeated opportunities, complainant had not appeared or given evidence.  Manager representing opposite party was examined as RW1 on its behalf.  Exts.R1 to R5 were marked.  Complainant had not appeared on the date when opposite party had tendered evidence and nor was his counsel.   RW1 was not cross examined.   After  examination of  RW1,

 

                                                                                                              (cont….3)

 

-  3  -

brief arguments were addressed by learned counsel for opposite party.  Now the point which arise for consideration are :

                                                                               

1)  Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party ?

2)  Whether complainant is entitled for getting his loss reimbursed or compensation from opposite party ?                                                                                    

3)  Reliefs and costs ?

 

Point Nos.1 and 2 are considered together :

 

          Alleged deficiency in service is delay of 2 days in the disbursement of prize amount.  Complainant has contended that amount was payable to him on 7.6.2019.  Chitty was auctioned in the month of May 2019.  As per clause 15 (a) of Rule 14, prize amount is payable after 30 days of auction and thereafter within 60 days, upon production of sufficient sureties and collateral security in accordance with the agreement.  Ext.R5 is the calendar of 2019.  It could be seen from this, that 8.6.2019 and 9.6.2019 were 2^nd Saturday and Sunday respectively, which were holidays.  Prize amount was disbursed admittedly on 10.6.2019, which is the next working day.  Even going by complaint averments, we find that there is no inordinate delay in disbursement of prize amount to complainant, presuming it is payable on 7.6.2019.  Though complainant has alleged that non-payment of prize amount on 7.6.2019 was owing to latches on the side of opposite party, he has not entered the box to prove his contentions.  On the other hand, opposite party has given evidence that complainant had not turned up with sufficient sureties on 7.6.2019, for execution of bond and other documents.  He had come only on 10.6.2019, which is the next working day.  On that date itself prize amount was disbursed to him, upon execution of necessary documents.  This evidence of RW1 stands unchallenged and supported by the documents produced from the side of opposite party.  Therefore, we find that there is no deficiency in service on the side of opposite party.  It is not bound to compensate the complainant for loss if any suffered to him or for the alleged deficiency in service, which is totally absent in this case.  Point Nos.1 and 2 are answered accordingly.

 

Point No3 :

 

          Considering the evidence tendered and pleadings on record, we find that this complaint was filed only with the intention of harassing opposite party.  Complaint is vexatious, so we find, in view of facts which have come to light. In  these circumstances, we are of the view that complainant should pay cost of Rs.5,000/- to opposite party. 

 

                                                                                                              (cont….4)

 

• 4  -

In the result, complaint is dismissed with cost of Rs.5,000/-, payable by complainant to opposite party, within 30 days of this order, if not, opposite party shall be entitled to realize the amount in accordance to the provisions of the Act.

 

           Pronounced by this Commission on this the  19^th  day of September, 2022

                             

                                                                                          Sd/-

    SRI. C. SURESHKUMAR, PRESIDENT

                              Sd/-

  SMT. ASAMOL P., MEMBER

                    Sd/-

SRI. AMPADY K.S., MEMBER

 

 

 

APPENDIX

 

Depositions :

On the side of the Complainant :

Nil.

On the side of the Opposite Party :

RW1      -  Renju J. Kaniakatil.

Exhibits :

On the side of the Complainant :

Ext.P1    - 

Ext.P3    - 

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Ext.R1    -  Receipt of the prize amount paid.

Ext.R2    - Bank account statement of opposite party.

Ext.R3    -  Consent of sureties.

Ext.R4    -  Rule 14 of the chitty.

Ext.R5    -  calendar for the year 2019.

                                                                                                     Forwarded by Order,

 

 

 

                                                                                ASSISTANT REGISTRAR