Kerala

Idukki

CC/102/2018

Issac T Devassy - Complainant(s)

Versus

Manager sydicate Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Adv.K M Sanu

29 Nov 2019

ORDER

DATE OF FILING :23/05/18

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI

Dated this the 29^th day of November 2019

Present :

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR PRESIDENT

SMT.ASAMOL P. MEMBER

CC NO. 102/2018

Between

Complainant : Issac T.Devasia,

Therakaplackal House,

Kudayathoor P.O., Thodupuzha.

(By Adv: K.M.Sanu)

And

Opposite Party : 1 . The Manager,

Syndicate Bank,

Thodupuzha Branch,Prakash Building,

Post office Junction, Thodupuzha, Thodupuzha P.O.

2 . Syndicate Bank,

Represented by Branch Manager,

Thodupuzha Branch, Thodupuzha P.O.

(Both by Adv: Babu Sebastian)

 

O R D E R

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR (PRESIDENT)

 

The case of the complainant is that,

 

Complainant is a retired opposite party's bank employee. For his livelihood complainant submitted a scheme to the opposite party bank for installation of a power generator in the bank, for banking purpose. On approval of this scheme, complainant purchased a diesel generator of 25 KV power for an amount of Rs.3,75,000/-. This amount is availed from the bank as loan. The complainant and bank authorities created an agreement for installation of generator set. As per this agreement, complainant agreed to provide service for this generator for a monthly rent of Rs.10,000/- and Rs.3,500/- as monthly fuel expenses and this contract is fixed for five years from December 2008.

 

(Cont.....2)

-2-

The complainant further averred that at the time of executing the first agreement, opposite parties bank orally agreed that if they uses the generator beyond the agreement period they will increase the monthly rent of the generator and fuel charges.

 

When the complainant tried to remove the generator from the premises of the bank, bank authorities requested for continue his service, at that time opposite parties bank made believe the complainant that they will pay increased rate of rent as well as the rate of fuel. But even though the complainant approached so many time for increase in the rate of rent of generator and the rate of fuel opposite parties through written request, bank has not took any steps to pay the increased rate of rent and fuel. At last in the month of October 2017, the opposite parties bank permitted the complainant to remove the generator set from the premises of the bank building or the bank stopped the use of the generator.

 

Hence the complainant is entitled to get an additional amount of Rs.2500/- per month from the opposite parties by way of increased rate of rent as well as fuel charges. In this way opposite parties liable to pay Rs.1,15,000/- to the complainant for the use of 46 months of the generator after the termination of the agreement. Non payment of such an increased rate of rent as well as fuel charges is an unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.

 

Under this circumstances complainant filed this complaint seeking relief such as to direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.1,15,000/- being the rate of rent for the use of generator from 2014 January to 2017 October and further direct the opposite parties to pay compensation and cost.

 

Upon notice opposite parties entered appearance and filed detailed reply version contenting that the complainant is a service provider to the opposite parties bank and further, the transaction with the opposite parties bank is for commercial purpose. The complainant is filed claiming that the bank is a service provider which is factually incorrect and is contradictory to the other pleading taken in the instant complaint itself. Hence the view of the above the complainant is not a consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act.

(Cont.....3)

-3-

Opposite parties further contented that the opposite parties never agreed for an increase to rate of rent and fuel charges as averred in the complaint and as such the lawyer notice issued by the complainant dated 10/02/15 is clearly mentioned in the notice that the complainant is annulling and terminating the agreement. The opposite parties never replied to the above notice since they were not amendable for renewal of the agreement. The complainant retained and kept the generator in the bank premises even inviting protest from the building owner of his own. The opposite parties never ever obstructed the complainant from removing the generator kept in the bank premises at any point of time and such version is absolutely false.

 

The opposite parties further contented that the complainant had already caused to issue legal notice to the first opposite party on 10/02/15 and it is clearly stated that he has repudiated the agreement despite of its non- existence in the eye or law and it reflects and manifests the genuineness. The complainant is not entitled to any reliefs from the opposite parties and he had to remove the generator due to lack of space and protest from the building owner and also due to the non- renewal of the agreement for the operation of the 25 KVA three phase power generator in the premises. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed with the cost of the opposite parties.

 

Evidence adduced by the complainant by way of proof affidavit and documents. Complainant was examined as PW1 and ExtP1 to Ext.P5 were marked. Ext.P1 is the copy of the sanction from KSEB, Ext.P2 is the copy of request dated 28/11/14, Ext.P3 is the copy of legal notice dated 10/02/15, Ext.P4 is the request for getting copy of the sanction letter, Ext.P5 is the bank account statement.

 

From the opposite parties side, the present Chief Manager of the first opposite party was examined as DW1 and Ext.R1 to Ext.R3 were marked. Ext.R1 is the copy of agreement dated 09/12/2008, Ext.R2 is the copy of lawyer notice dated 10/02/15, Ext.R3 is the request of letter from one Maya Asok.

 

Heard both sides,

 

(Cont.....4)

-4-

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 heard the counsels for both parties and had gone through evidence. It is an admitted fact that the complainant and the first opposite party bank entered into an agreement for allowing the complainant to provide generator power in the bank building for a period of 5 years from 09/12/2008. As per the agreement the complainant is agreed to provide generator service to opposite party's bank for a monthly rent of Rs.10,000/- and a fixed fuel charges of Rs.3,500/- per month.

 

The learned counsel for the complainant argued that at the time of creating the above said agreement, the bank officers promised that if they are availing the service of the complainant after the termination of the agreement they will pay the increased rate of rent as well as the fuel charges. But the opposite parties bank has not turned up to pay the rent and fuel charges in an increased rate as orally agreed, even though they used the generator power till October 2017. Even though the complainant approached them and filed written request, the opposite parties evaded from their words. For establishing their version complainant filed Ext.P2 request and Ext.P3 copy of legal notice. On perusing the documents it is seen that this Ext.P2 request is prepared on 28/11/14, requesting to increase rent from Rs.10,000/- to 11,000/- and increase fuel charges from Rs.3,500/- to Rs.4000/-. On perusing Ext.P3 legal notice dated 10/02/15, it is seen that the complainant is demanded a hike of Rs.20,000/- as rent for generator, ie from 03/10/2013. In their notice complainant demanded Rs.1,10,500/- as rent arrears from October 2013 to February 2015. By comparing the request of Ext.P2 and the demand of Ext.P3 legal notice and the averrment in complaint, it is very clear that the complainant has not a contract or clear demand in the hike of rent and fuel charges. In the Ext.P2, the request is for a hike of Rs.1000/- in generator rent and Rs.500/- in fuel charges. In Ext.P3 legal notice, he demanded a hike of Rs.10,000/- is generator rent. In the complaint he demanded Rs.2500/- per month as increased rent and fuel charges. From perusing these evidence, it is very clear that the complainant has not a specific demand for increase the rent of generator and fuel charges such inconsistent

(Cont.....5)

-5-

demand itself shows that the version of the complainant has no legal entity and is doubtful.

 

More over it is very pertinent to note that, the complainant has not placed any request to the opposite parties immediately after the termination of Ext.R1 agreement or complainant has not compelled the opposite parties to renew the agreement from the date of termination or to execute a new agreement for the further period. It is further noticed that the complainant is failed to produce any evidence to show that the Ext.P2 request duly served to the opposite parties and whether the opposite parties accepted the request. If we taken into consideration of the request, it is seen that in this request the complainant demanded only Rs.1,500/- per month by way of increased rent and increased fuel rate, the complainant is entitled to get an amount of Rs.1500x46. Ie, Rs.69,000/- not as alleged in the complaint or proof affidavit.

 

On the basis of above discussion, Forum found that the complainant is failed to produce any evidence to substantiate the averment in the complaint. Moreover on perusing Ext.P1 sanction from the KSEB in using the power supply of 25 KVA generation, it is seen that the KSEB given sanction to the opposite parties bank and one M/s Linsta Services, Vazhakulam, Muvattupuzha. This document is not issued in favour of the complainant.

 

On the basis of above discussion, Forum found that complainant is miserably failed to prove his contention with clear and cogent evidence. Hence complaint dismissed. No order to cost.

 

Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 29^th day of November, 2019.

 

Sd/-

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR (PRESIDENT)

Sd/-

SMT. ASAMOL P. (MEMBER)

 

 

(Cont.....6)

-6-

 

APPENDIX

 

Depositions :

On the side of the Complainant :

PW1 - Issac T.Devasia

On the side of the Opposite Party :

DW1 - S.Jayasree

Exhibits :

On the side of the Complainant :

Ext.P1 - The copy of the sanction from KSEB

Ext.P2 - The copy of request dated 28/11/14

Ext.P3 - Copy of legal notice dated 10/02/15

Ext.P4 - The request for getting copy of the sanction letter

Ext.P5 - The bank account statement.

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Ext.R1 - The copy of agreement dated 09/12/2008

Ext.R2 - The copy of lawyer notice dated 10/02/15

Ext.R3 - The request of letter from one Maya Asok.

 

Forwarded by Order,

 

SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT