Kerala

StateCommission

A/15/177

M/S CHORUS KURIES AND LOANS (P) LTD - Complainant(s)

Versus

LESLEY SUNNY - Opp.Party(s)

S REGHUKUMAR

08 May 2019

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION SISUVIHARLANE VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 

APPEAL NUMBERS 201/14, 202/14, 176/15 & 177/15

COMMON JUDGMENT DATED : 08.05.2019

 

(Appeals are filed on the file of CDRF, Thrissur in

CC.Nos.722/2008 & CC.723/2008)

PRESENT

SRI.T.S.P.MOOSATH                      : JUDICIAL MEMBER

SRI.RANJIT.R                                  : MEMBER

SMT.BEENA KUMARI.A                 : MEMBER

 

APPEAL NUMBER 201/14

APPELLANT

 

                              Lesly Sunny, D/o.Sunny, Panakkal House

                            

                                      (BY Adv.Sri.Shani K Krishnan)

                                     

                                                VS

RESPONDENT

                       

Chorus Kuries and Loans (P) Ltd, Guruvayoor Road, Kunnamkulam, Rep.by its Managing Director, Sri.K.T.Symon

 

                   (BY Adv.Sri.S.Reghu kumar)

                   

 

 

APPEAL NUMBER 202/2014

APPELLANT

 

                   Mary Sunny, W/o.Sunny, Panakkal House, Padinjare Angadi,

                   Kunnamkulam., Thrissur

                                     

                                      (BY Adv.Sri.Shani K Krishnan)

 

                                                                   VS

RESPONDENT

 

Chorus Kuries and Loans (P) Ltd, Guruvayoor Road, Kunnamkulam, Rep.by its Managing Director, Sri.K.T.Symon

 

                   (BY Adv.Sri.S.Reghu kumar)

                   

APPEAL NUMBER 176/2015

     APPELLANT  

 

Chorus Kuries and Loans (P) Ltd, Guruvayoor Road,    Kunnamkulam, Rep.by its Managing Director, Sri.K.T.Symon

 

                   (BY Adv.Sri.S.Reghu kumar)

 

                             VS

 

RESPONDENT

Mary Sunny, W/o.Sunny, Panakkal House, Padinjare Angadi,

                   Kunnamkulam., Thrissur

                             (BY Adv.Sri.Shani K Krishnan)

APPEAL NUMBER 177/2015

APPELLANT

 

Chorus Kuries and Loans (P) Ltd, Guruvayoor Road,      Kunnamkulam, Rep.by its Managing Director, Sri.K.T.Symon

 

                   (BY Adv.Sri.S.Reghu kumar)

 

                             VS

RESPONDENT

                        Lesly Sunny, D/o.Sunny, Panakkal House

                                   (BY Adv.Sri.Shani K Krishnan)

                                      COMMON JUDGMENT

SRI.T.S.P.MOOSATH             :JUDICIAL MEMBER

                          All these appeal arise from the common order passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thrissur, in short, the district forum in CC.No.722/2008 and in CC.No.723/2008 by which complaints were partly allowed and the opposite party was directed to return to Rs 2,00,000/- each to both complainants after deducting Rs 12,500/- each with interest at the rate of 12% from the date of the complaint till realization with cost of Rs 500/- within two months from the date of the copy of the receipt of the order.

                   2.       The averments contained in the compliant in CC. N0.722/2008 are in brief as follows. On 31.12.98 the complainant had deposited Rs 2,00,000/- as kuri deposit toward the Kuri numbers of 24 and 187. The due date of deposit was on 09.12.2009. The interest rate fixed was Rs 18%. On 20.05.2008 when the complainant went to the opposite party along with deposit receipt they corrected the interest rate ais 12% by scoring off 18% and it was told that they would pay interest at the rate of 12% only. The uni lateral act of the opposite party is unfair practice and deficiency in service on their part. So a lawyer notice was issued. There after the complaint is filed. The prayer of the complainant was to direct the opposite party to pay interest at the rate of 18% per annum. Subsequently the complaint was amended incorporating the prayer to direct the opposite party to return the amount of Rs 2,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% and compensation and cost.

 

                   3.       The opposite party filed version raising the following contentions. It is true that on 31.12.1998 the complainant had deposited           Rs 2,00,00/- as kuri security when the complainant was a minor her father had joined the kuri and the amounts were deposited by her father. The kuri security deed was executed by the father of the complainant and an amount of              Rs 2,00,000/- was accepted towards the payment of future instalments of the kuri. The interest rate fixed was 18%. The rate of interest was reduced as per the directions of the Finance Department and RBI accordingly from 01.01.2002 onwards, the interest rate was reduced 12%. The fact was intimated to the complainant by registered notice and it was accepted by the complainant. But she has not taken back the amount. So the claim of the complainant on the basis of reduction of interest is time barred. The original deposit receipt is kept in the office of the opposite party. There is no correction of interest rate. There was no material alteration done in the duplicate receipt kept by the complainant. On 26.08.2005 the complainant has withdrawn Rs 12,500/- out of the deposited amount of Rs 2,00,000/-. The opposite party is not liable to pay interest at the rate of 18%. The respondent filed additional version raising the following contentions. The opposite party is not liable to pay Rs 2,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 18% per annum. The deposit amount and the interest amounts were accepted by the complainant. So she is not entitled to get back any amount from the complainant. Complainant is not entitled to realise any amount from the opposite party. The complaint is to be dismissed.

                  

                   4.       The complainant in CC.No.723.2008 filed by the complaint with more or less same averments contained in the complaint in CC.No.722/08 except the fact the amount of Rs 2,00,000/- was deposited  as kuri security deposit towards kuri numbers 25 & 187. Subsequently the complaint was also amended incorporating the same prayer in CC.No.722/08. The opposite party filed version and additional version raising more or less same contentions raised by them in the version and additional version filed by them in CC.No.722/2008.

 

                   5.      In CC.No.722/2008 Exts.P1 to P3 were marked on the side of the complainant and Exts.R1 to R7 were marked on the side of the opposite party. In CC.No.723/2008 Exts.P1 to P3 were marked on the side of the complainant. RW1 was examined and Exts.R1 to R11 were marked on the side of the opposite party.

 

                       6.      After considering the evidence adduced by the parties and hearing both sides the district forum has passed the impugned order. Aggrieved by the order passed by the district forum the complainant in CC.No.722/2008 and the complainant in CC.No.723/2008 had filed Appeal no.201/14 and 202/14 respectively and the opposite party in those case filed Appeal no.176/2015 and A.177/2015.

 

                   7.      The district forum has passed the common order in both cases. The complainant in CC.No.723/2008 is the mother of the complainant in CC.No.722/2008. The opposite party in both complainants are the same. The disputes involved in both complaints are regarding the refund of the amount deposited by the complainant with the opposite party and the rate of interest for the said deposit. The matters to be decided in all the appeals are more or less same. So all the appeals were heard and considered together.

 

                   8.    Heard both sides. Perused the records.

 

                   9.   There is no dispute to the fact that on 31.12.98 the complainants had deposited Rs 2,00,000/- each with the opposite party as kuri security deposit. The due date of the deposit was on 09.12.2009. The opposite party agreed to pay the interest at the rate of 18% per annum. The allegation of the complainant is that the opposite party uni laterally reduced / deducted the interest rate to 12%. It is alleged by the complainants that the act of the opposite party is in reducing the rate of interest uni laterally is unfair practice and deficiency in service. It is contended by the opposite party that they have reduced the rate of interest to 12% with effect from 01.01.2002 as per the directions of the Finance Department and Reserve Bank of India. That fact was intimated to the complainant by sending registered notice. But the complainant did not turn up. They have not taken back the amounts and offered another security. In OP 722/2008 the opposite party issued Ext.R4 intimation to the complainant that the rate of interest is reduced to 12% from 01.01.2002  onwards and if she is not amenable / agreeable to that she can withdraw the amount deposited and offer some other security. Ext.R5 acknowledgment card shows that the complainant had received the notice / intimation sent by the opposite party to the complainant in CC.No.722/2008. In CC.No.723/2008, the opposite party had issued Ext.R5 notice,  intimating the complainant about the reduction of interest rate and Ext.R6 shows that the complainant received notice / intimation sent by the opposite party. But the complainants did not turn up and they have not withdrawn the amount and offered another security. So the case of the complainants that when they had gone to  the office of the opposite party. They had corrected the interest rate as 12% in the deposit receipts is seen false. As found by the district forum the complainants not entered into the box and they have not adduced any oral evidence. Exts.P1 to P3 documents produced by the complainants are not at all sufficient to prove their claim. As found by the district forum the original deposit receipts are with the opposite party and there was no scoring and there is no material alteration in the receipts as alleged by the complainants. In these circumstances the complainants are not entitled to get interest at the rate of 18% per annum is prayed for them in the complainants and they are get entitled to get interest at rate of 12% only. We consider that there is no reason / ground to interfere with the finding of the District forum regarding these aspects.

 

                   10.  The complaints were later amended so as to incorporate and the prayer to direct the opposite party to release the amount of Rs 2,00,000/- with interest. It is admitted by the opposite party that the complainants deposited Rs 2,00,000/- each as security for the kuri transaction. In the additional version filed by the opposite party they contended that the complainants had received the amount deposited and interest for that amount and so they are not liable to pay any amount to the complainants. It is to be noted that in the version filed by the opposite party they have no such case. Further in the version it is stated by the opposite party that the complainants had withdrawn Rs 12,500/- from the deposits. In Ext.P3 reply notice also they have no case that the complainants had received the entire amount deposited with interest. Further in the first portion of the additional version it is stated by the opposite party that the complainants had withdrawn Rs 12,500/- from the deposit made by them and the balance amount available is Rs 1,87,500/- . Further RW1 stated that the entire deposit amounts were not taken by the complainants. RW1 deposed that what is intended by the statement in the additional version that the deposit amount and interest were received by the complainant is regarding the withdrawal of the amount of Rs 12,500/- and interest and it is not Rs 2,00,000/- with interest. So it is clarified by the opposite party company itself that the balance amount after deducting Rs 12,500/- is with the company and the complainants are entitled to get back those amounts. The counsel for the appellants in A.175/2015 and A.176/15 submitted that the district forum ought to have found that the complainants are entitled to get Rs 1,06,817/- each as the balance amount from the deposit amount, after the adjustment of the defaulted instalments in the kuries subscribed by the complainants, in both complaints. It is to be noted that the opposite party had no such case in the reply notice in the version or in the additional version filed by them. RW1 deposited that the complainants defaulted in payment of the instalments in the kuri and they had taken amount from the deposited amount and remitted towards the instalments in the kuri and they are authorized do so by the complainants. It is true that in Ext.R4 in OP.No.723/2008 the complainant had agreed and authorized the opposite party to adjust the amount from the deposit amount if she committ default in payment of the instalments in the kuri. As found by the district forum the opposite party had no such case in the reply notice or version or additional version. Further RW1 had not specifically stated about the details of the alleged  default of the payment of the instalments of the kuri by the complainants, the deduction of the amounts from the deposit amount to be adjusted towards the defaulted instalments and the complainants are entitled to get only so much amounts.From the contentions raised by the opposite parties in the reply notice in the  version and in the additional version it can be seen that they have no consistent case. In these circumstances, as found by the district forum, R10 and R11 documents produced by the opposite party to show that amounts were due to them from the complainants cannot be relied on. The district forum found that there was deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party and the complainants are entitled to get Rs 2,00,000/- each, after deducting Rs 12,500/- each, with interest at the rate of 12% from the date of complaint till realization, with cost of Rs 500/-. We consider that there is no ground / reason to interfere with the finding of the district forum and the order passed by the district forum. For the above reasons, all the appeals are to be dismissed.

                   In the result, the four appeals, Appeals 201/14, 202/14, 176/15 & 177/15 are dismissed.

                   Parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.

 

T.S.P.MOOSATH                    : JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

RANJIT.R                                :MEMBER

 

BEENA KUMARI.A                 : MEMBER

                  

 

 

Be/

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

KERALA STATE

CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION

SISUVIHARLANE

 VAZHUTHACADU

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 

APPEAL NUMBERS 201/14, 202/14,

176/15 & 177/15

COMMON JUDGMENT DATED : 08.05.2019