IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOTTAYAM
Dated this the 28th day of February, 2022
Present: Sri. Manulal V.S. President
Smt. Bindhu R. Member,
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member
C C No. 105/2019 (filed on 02-07-2019)
Petitioner : Prasannan K.S.,
S/o K.V. Vasu,
Kuroor House,
Perumpayikkadu Village,
Kumaranalloor P.O.,
Kottayam -686016.
(Adv. Rajan K. Nair )
Vs.
Opposite parties : 1) Managing Director,
K.S.F.E,
Musium Road,
Trissur - 680020 .
2) K.S.F.E.,
Musium Road,
Trissur-680020
Rep.by its Managing Director.
3) Manager,
K.S.F.E,
Medical College Branch,
Kottayam.
Adv.Prinimol M.P. and Adv.V.Jayaprakash)
O R D E R
Smt. Bindhu R. Member
The complaint is filed under Section -12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
The complainant was enrolled as the member of the chitty no 114/2013/A/66 of the opposite party. The complainant got Rs. 6,94,000/- in auction on 21.01.2016 of Rs.10,00,000/- as principal amount. The 3rd opposite party sent a legal notice to the complainant on 12.12.2012 in which it was alleged that he had a due of 3 instalments in the said chitty. But the complainant had been paying the instalments promptly till that date but thereafter he defaulted 3 payments. At the time of investing in the fixed deposit the opposite party assured to give an interest of 9% .But he was not informed that the FD had to be renewed annually. The fixed deposit was made only to one year and the opposite party had not given the FD receipt and had not informed the complainant about the date of renewal of the FD thus causing loss to the complainant. After 20.2.2017 the 3rd opposite party took Rs. 8,259/- from the said fixed deposit and the balance amount of Rs. 6,55,741/- was deposited in two fixed deposits of Rs.4,80,000/- and Rs.2,05,741/- . This came to the knowledge of the complainant only on 23.2.2017.The complainant was not informed about the interest of the FD or renewal of the same and this is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. Later when the complainant approached the opposite parties for withdrawing the amount upon salary certificate he was given the amount after deducting 32,396/- .Thus the opposite parties recovered Rs.40,655/- in total.
Thus the complainant had a loss of Rs.40,655/- due to the deficient service from the part of the opposite party which is to be realised and hence the complaint is filed.
Even after appearance before this commission on receipt of notice the opposite parties did not file version and hence set ex-parte.
The complainant filed proof affidavit along with documents which were marked as Exhibits A1 to A6.
On perusal of the pleadings and documents we would frame the issues as
1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and
2. If so what are the reliefs the complainant is entitled for?
According to the complainant he had joined with the opposite party for a chitty of Rs.10,00,000/- which was auctioned on 21.1.2016 for Rs.6,94,000/- and the same amount was deposited with the opposite parties itself. But without giving intimation to the complainant the opposite parties deducted Rs. 8,259/- and Rs.32, 396/- in total Rs.40,655/- from the said amount. The complainant made default in the payment of monthly instalments only after getting a notice from the 3rd opposite party that he had defaulted 3 times. The complainant is entitled for getting the deducted amount back.
Though the opposite parties did not file their version, Ext. A5 which is the application filed by the complainant to the opposite parties under the Right to Information Act and Ext. A6 which is the reply given by the opposite parties explains the transactions. As per A6 document, the complainant had to pay Rs.2,307/- per month less the monthly interest of the fixed deposit. The interest was deposited against the chitty instalments and as the Rs.2,307/- was not being paid every month, it became due and it was informed to the complainant through a notice dated 12.12.17. On 20.4.18 the complainant opted for the closure of the fixed deposit. So for regularising the chitty instalments the opposite parties appropriated Rs.32,397/- against the chitty payment. The opposite parties had not collected Rs.8,259/- from the account of the complainant as per the Ext.A6.
So Ext. A6 is a clear document which explains the act of the opposite parties and we see no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. The complainant who had got the money on auction is bound to pay the instalments completely. Hence we find that the allegations of the complainant is based on some misconceptions upon which no relief can be allowed. Hence the complaint is dismissed.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed and typed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 28th day of February, 2022.
Smt. Bindhu R. Member Sd/-
Sri. Manulal V.S. President Sd/-
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member Sd/-
Appendix
Exhibits marked from the side of complainant
A1- Document received on 20.04.2017 from the opposite party
A2- Lawyers Notice to the opposite party on 09.08.2018
A3- Acknowledgement Receipt
A4- Acknowledgement Card
A5- RTI application filed by the complainant
A6- RTI reply given by the opposite party
Exhibits marked from the side of opposite party
Nil
By Order
Assistant Registrar
