DATE OF FILING : 22.12.2016

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI

Dated this the 27^th day of March, 2018

Present :

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR PRESIDENT

SRI. BENNY. K. MEMBER

CC NO.365/2016

Between

Complainant : Gayos P.M.,

Puthirickal House,

Thodupuzha East P.O.,

Idukki.

(By Adv: K.M. Sanu)

And

Opposite Parties : 1. The Manager,

KSFE Thodupuzha Main Branch,

Thodupuzha P.O.,

685 584.

(By Adv: Babu Sebastian)

2. The Manager,

KSFE Head Office,

Bhadratha, P.B. No.510,

Museum Road, Thrissur – 680 020.

O R D E R

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR, PRESIDENT

Case of the complainant is that,

Complainant is the prized subscriber of chit No.55/15, conducted by the 1^st opposite party. The sale of the chit is 20 lakhs. This chit commenced on 12.8.2015 and the termination date is 12.11.2018. Complainant is paying the chit instalments regularly and on the 17^th instalment, the chit was prized in favour of him for an amount of Rs.17,25,500/- on 12.12.2016.

For releasing the chit amount, complainant submitted his title deed along with related documents. This title deed was accepted by the 1^st opposite party, since it is having sufficient valuation and it is free from any encumbrances. For releasing the chit amount, in addition to the collateral security, 1^st opposite party demanded the signature of the wife of the complainant in the chit bond. Complainant resisted the demand on the reason that the collateral security which he given to the 1^st opposite party is solely belonging to him alone and

(cont....2)

- 2 -

having much more valuation. He further stated that, this property was valued by the officials of the 1^st opposite party in the year 2010. Hence the demand of signature of the wife of the complainant in the chit bond is illegal, since the complainant was not amenable to the demand of 1^st opposite party. So the 1^st opposite party decided to release the chit amount. Complainant further stated that, the act of non-releasing of the chit amount by the opposite party caused much mental agony and financial loss to the complainant and being a business man, this affected adversely to his business. Alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice against the 1^st opposite party, complainant filed this petition for getting the relief such as to direct the 1^st opposite party to release the chit amount to the complainant with 18% interest without obtaining the signature of his wife and other compensating reliefs.

On notice, opposite parties entered appearance and filed detailed reply version. In their version, opposite party contended that the chit was prized to him in the auction conducted on 16.11.2016. Opposite party admitted that they demanded the signature of the wife of the complainant in the mortgage deed, since there is a dwelling house in the property which is mortgaged as collateral security. Opposite party further contended that, for getting further confirmation, the opposite party forwarded the documents to the regional office and the regional office sanctioned it on 13.12.2016. As per the direction of the regional office, for creating equitable mortgage, opposite party demanded the signature of the wife of the complainant in mortgage bond on the reason that the property is having a dwelling house. Opposite party further contended that the complainant is a regular customer and the complainant's wife availed a chit from this branch in the year 2011, by pledging the same deed as security. In that chit bond, complainant and his wife put their signature. Hence the opposite parties are not in a position to release the chit amount without obtaining the signature of the spouse, as per the direction of the higher authority. Hence there is no deficiency in service occurred in this matter from the part of opposite parties.

From the complainant's side, complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts.P1 to P6 were marked. Ext.P1 is the copy of chit book. Ext.P2 is the letter to mortgager dated 15.12.2016. Ext.P3 is the copy of title deed and related documents. Ext.P4 is the copy of documents received through RI Act. Ext.P5is the copy of tax receipt. Ext.P6 is the copy of tax receipt.

From the opposite side, Assistant Manager of 1^st opposite party was examined as DW1. Exts.R1 to R7 were marked. Ext.R1 is the copy of posting

(cont....3)

- 3 -

letter. Ext.R2 is the copy of circular dated 13.12.2016. Ext.R3 is the copy of Ext.P2. Ext.R4 is the copy of postal receipt. Ext.R5 is the copy of agreement dated 10.9.2012. Ext.R6 is the copy of affidavit dated 17.8.2012. Ext.R7 is the circular dated 21.11.2016.

Heard both sides.

The point that arose for consideration is whether there is any deficiency in service from the part of opposite parties and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to ?

The POINT :- We have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsels for both the parties and examined the materials on record and gone through the deposition of witnesses. The only question to be decided is, whether the opposite party KSFE failed to extend the service to the complainant in sanctioning the prized chit amount. On perusing the documents and the averments in the complaint, it is an admitted fact that the complainant is a regular person in remitting chit instalments and the present chit was prized in his favour in its 17^th instalment. It is important to note that the documents produced as collateral security for releasing the chit amount are pucca documents and having sufficient valuation. But the opposite party denied the chit amount only on the technical ground that they need the signature of the spouse. The pertinent question here arises is that if the collateral security is more than sufficient and the title of the property is exclusively in favour of the complainant alone, what is the need of the signature of the spouse in the chit bond. This demand of the opposite party challenged by the complainant and denied. For substantiating their version, opposite party produced Exts.R5, R6 and R7 documents. Exts.R5 is the Articles of Agreement dated 10^th September 2012 and Ext.R6 is the copy of affidavit in chit No.42/11. On going through these documents, we can see that, these two documents were executed by the complainant and his wife Mary Gayos in favour of the 1^st opposite party, in the year 2012 for releasing the prized chit amount in chit No.42/11. On further perusal, we can see that, this chit is prized in favour of the wife of the complainant, who is the chittal and she pledged the same property as collateral security for releasing the chit amount. Normally, this chit bond must be signed by the husband of the chittal also, because husband is the owner and title holder of the property, which is pledged as collateral security, hence the signature of the husband is very necessary in the chit. In that chit, wife is the chittal and husband is the surety. Here the case is entirely different, the chittal and the title holder of the property are one and same. Then Ext.R7 is the

(cont....4)

- 4 -

circular dated 21.11.2016. Opposite party pointed the clause 3 of the “important matter to be attended”. In this clause, it is stated that, “signature of the spouse is necessary in the affidavit”. At the time of auction of the chit, this circular was not in force. Moreover, it is also noted that the prized chit amount is not deposited in the name of the chittal. As per the deposition of DW1, it is deposited in their own account. It is mandatory to deposit the prized chit amount in favour of the subscriber till its release and also the opposite party is liable to pay interest in the deposited amount.

On the basis of the above discussion, the Forum is of a considered view that, the denial of releasing the prized chit amount to the subscriber on some baseless ground, amounts to gross deficiency in their service.

Under the above circumstances, the complaint allowed. The Forum directs the 1^st opposite party to pay the prized chit amount to the complainant without demanding the signature of his wife, with 12% interest from 16.11.2016 to till the date of payment and also directed them to pay Rs.5000/- as litigation cost to the complainant, within 30 days of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the amount shall carry 12% interest per annum from the date of default, till its realisation.

Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 27^th day of March, 2018

Sd/-

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR, PRESIDENT

Sd/-

SRI. BENNY. K., MEMBER

(cont....4)

- 4 -

APPENDIX

Depositions :

On the side of the Complainant :

PW1 - Gayos P.M.

On the side of the Opposite Party :

DW1 - Anilkumar V.N.

Exhibits :

On the side of the Complainant :

Ext.P1 - copy of chit book.

Ext.P2 - letter to mortgager dated 15.12.2016.

Ext.P3 - copy of title deed and related documents.

Ext.P4 - copy of documents received through RI Act.

Ext.P5 - copy of tax receipt.

Ext.P6 - copy of tax receipt.

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Ext.R1 - copy of posting letter.

Ext.R2 - copy of circular dated 13.12.2016.

Ext.R3 - copy of Ext.P2.

Ext.R4 - copy of postal receipt.

Ext.R5 - copy of agreement dated 10.9.2012.

Ext.R6 - copy of affidavit dated 17.8.2012.

Ext.R7 - circular dated 21.11.2016.

Forwarded by Order,

SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT