KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL NO. 698/09 JUDGMENT DATED 28.7.2010 PRESENT SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN -- MEMBER SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR -- MEMBER The Dharmavilasam Co.Pvt.Ltd. Reptd by its Managing Director/Chairman, -- APPELLANT Puthenpeedika, Thrissur. (By Adv.R.Narayan & Ors.) Vs. Kochumathu, S/0 Anthoy, Kudukulagara House, -- RESPONDENT Athikad, Thrissur. JUDGMENT SRI. S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR, MEMBER The order dated 26.10.09 in CC.558/06 of CDRF; Thrissur is being challenged in this appeal by the opposite party who is under directions to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.35,000/- with interest at 11% per annum from the date of fixed deposit till realization with cost of Rs.1000/-. 2. The case of the complainant bereft of unnecessary details is that he had deposited a sum of Rs.35,000/- on 12.6.2000 with the opposite party being the auctioned amount in the kuri subscribed by him and the rate of interest was 14% and as the rate was reduced to 12% an OP was filed before the Forum and the Forum below directed the opposite party to give 14% interest itself till the termination of the kuri. The complainant has alleged that from the date of termination, he was entitled to 11% per annum on the deposited amount and he had sent money orders also in connection with the balance installments of the kuri subscribed by him. The further case is that as the opposite party was not prepared to give him 11% interest from 12.6.03 he had suffered huge loss and as the opposite party was not willing to give back the deposited amount of Rs.35,000/- the present complaint was filed calling for the interference of the Forum and for directions to the opposite party to give him 35,000/- with interest and costs. 3. Resisting the allegation in the complaint, the opposite party filed version stating that he had complied the order of the Forum below in OP.661/01 and the complainant had accepted the same as per the final settlement. It was also submitted that the amount sent by money order was adjusted in the installment dues and also that the complainant was not entitled to any interest after 12.6.03. It was further submitted that the instalment amounts towards the kuri were appropriated from the deposited amount and the balance was paid to the complainant during the adjudication of the present complaint and as the amount was received by the complainant, the complaint became infractuous. It was also submitted that Exts.R1 and R2 were sufficient enough to exonerate the opposite party from paying any further amounts. 4. The evidence consisted of Exts. P1 series to P7, R1 and R2. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued before us that the order of the Forum below directing the appellant/opposite party to pay Rs.35,000/- with interest and costs is per se illegal and unsustainable. It is his very case that there was no direction to pay interest at 12% per annum from 12.6.03. He has also submitted before us that even after12.6.03 the subscriptions towards the kuri had to be paid by the complainant/respondent and that the amount covered under money order was not sufficient to discharge the liability of the complainant towards the kuri installments. It is also his case that the Forum below had ignored Exts.R1 and R2 where it is clear that the opposite party had a clear cut direction and that the complainant had not raised any allegations regarding such accounts. Thus, he argued for the position that the appeal is to be allowed thereby setting aside the order of the Forum below. 6. On hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and also on perusing the records, we find that as per Ext.P7 order in OP.661/01, the Forum below had directed the opposite party to pay interest at 14% per annum till 12.6.03 ie; till the maturity of the fixed deposit of Rs.35,000/-. We find force in the argument of the learned counsel that the Forum below had gone wrong in directing the opposite party to return Rs.35,000/- with 11% interest. On a perusal of Ext.P7 order, we find no directions by the Forum below to give interest after 12.6.03, though it had directed the opposite party to give interest at 14% itself till 12.6.03. On a further scrutiny of Ext.R1, produced by the opposite party/appellant, we find that as per Ext.R1 the complainants counsel had accepted Rs.21,585/- on 30.8.2006. Though, the learned counsel for the appellant would argue that it was a full and final settlement, we do not find that Ext.R1 is to that effect. But, since there is no provision either in Ext.P7 order or in any agreement there after we are not inclined accept the contention of the complainant that he is entitled to interest at 11% per annum from 12.6.03. The opposite party/appellant has also submitted before us that as per Ext.R2, the amount sent by money order was also taken into account while appropriating the balance amount from the deposit amount. However, we find that the complainant had not raised any allegations against Ext.R2. In the absence of any evidence we are of the view that the Forum below is not justified in allowing the complaint to a greater extent. We find that the directions contained in the said order are un-sustainable in law and facts. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The order dated 26.10.09 in CC 558/06 of CDRF, Thrissur is set aside. In the facts and circumstances of the present appeal, the parties are directed to suffer their respective costs. S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR -- MEMBER VALSALA SARANGADHARAN -- MEMBER | 
