DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM  PALAKKAD

Dated this the 21^stday of August2018

Present   : Smt.Shiny.P.R. President

              : Smt.Suma.K.P. Member                                Date of filing:  20/05/2017

              : Sri.V.P.Anantha Narayanan, Member

CC/81/2017

Rajani.C,

W/o Appu,

Thridhanan House,

Sreekrishnapuram (PO), Palakkad.                                      -  Complainant

(Advs.Harris & Jayasree)

                                                 Vs

Peringottukaranamboodiri Yogashema Sabha,

Padmini Complex Sreekrishnapuram,

Sreekrishnapuram Branch, Palakkad – 679 513.

Peringottukaranamboodiri Yogashema (PNY Sabha),- Opposite parties

Regd. Office : Anthikkad, Thrissur District,

Kerala – 680 641.

(opp. Party 1 & 2 Adv.B.Ravikumar)

                                                           O R D E R

By Smt.Suma.K.P. Member

          The complainant joined “Dhanavarsha monthly Kuri“ statement No.114.  Ticket No.341 for Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees Six lakh only) monthly installment of Rs.5,000/- and the date of commencement for first installment was on 18.01.2012 and the date of termination is 15.12.2021.  That, the complainant until date has remitted 64 installments, without making any default ie., Rs.5,000/- each month amounting to Rs.3,20,000/-.  Complainant required some money for personal purpose during the month of March 2017 and the complainant participated in auction and became a successful bidder for an amount of Rs.3,99,900/-.  That, complainant when auctioned the above mentioned amount it was told by the opposite parties to furnish sufficient security before drawing the amount.  The opposite party issued a proforma of salary certificate, which is sufficient security for withdrawing the auctioned amount.  As per the direction and instruction from the opposite party, the complainant who is a Central Government employee, working as a Postal Assistant in the Post and Telegraph Department, and draws a gross salary of Rs.31,829/- per month, submitted the salary certificate along with the additional surety salary certificate of her husband Mr.Appu,  who is a Upper Division Clerk in State Government employee.  It was arranged, as same with the given proforma, and submitted at the opposite party’s office at Sreekrishnapuram on 10.04.2017 as a sufficient security for withdrawing the auctioned amount.  The opposite party after receiving the said salary certificates as sufficient securities, from the complainant for withdrawing the bid amount, instead of releasing the bid amount within one month from the date of bid, and issued a notice dated on 29.04.2017 by declining the salary certificates which submitted by the opposite parties and mentioned some unclear statement.  The complainant has never failed in remitting any installment during all these years and more so the complainant has already deposited Rs.3,20,000/- with the opposite party even the bid amount is Rs.3,99,900/-.  The complainant has insisted many times for drawing the auctioned amount with salary certificates as sufficient securities but the opposite party declined the same by demanding gold or title deed as securities.  A reading of the terms and conditions and general expectations etc. contained in the kuri issued by the opposite party, it is abundantly clear that the salary certificates issued from the State Government and Central Government are sufficient securities for the purpose of withdrawn the bid amount.  The complainant submit that opposite part ought to have accepted salary certificates issued by Central Government and State Government as sufficient security for releasing the bid amount as demanded by the opposite party earlier.  Due to the irresponsible act of the opposite party the complainant suffered loss, mental agony and loss of professional practice, for which she is entitled to get compensation.  Hence the complaint. 

          The opposite parties entered appearance upon notice from the forum and filed version contending as follows. That the averments contained in the complaint are not correct and contented that there was no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.  The issuance of Performa for salary certificate is not acceptance of the surety.  The sufficiency of salary certificate produced by the complainant was to be assessed and accepted by the opposite parties as to its genuineness correctness and sufficiency.  After verifying the same the opposite party had informed the complainant over phone through her husband that the salary certificates produced are not sufficient for the disbursed of the bid amount.  The said fact was intimated to the complainant by letter dated.29.04.2017 itself in detail.  The opposite party had examined the genuineness and sufficiency of the salary certificate and had never accepted the same or agreed or promised the salary certificate as sufficient securities.  It is submitted that the salary certificates produced were not sufficient to disburse the amount of Rs.2,80,000/- which is the future liability of the complainant.  Hence the complainant had to submit sufficient security for disbursing the bid amount.  The 1^st opposite party has verified the salary certificates produced by the complainant.  In column No.5 of the salary certificate, none of the deductions for Provident Fund, State level Insurance, Gratuity, Loans – if any etc. are not shown.  Hence the opposite party is not in a position to know about the actual take home salary or net salary of the complainant or surety.  Moreover, as per Rule 8 of the terms and conditions of the Kuri Vaimpa 15^th day Dhanavarsha monthly Kuri (F-211), the successful bidders have to furnish sufficient security to the satisfaction of the foreman Sabha and execute necessary documents guaranteeing future payments in the chit.  The subscribers are also bound to give the Foreman Sabha in writing in the prescribed form by specifying the nature of securities intended to be furnished for the regular payment of future installments of the chit.  Hence in this case the complainant has not furnished the details of the securities, as the salary certificate produced by the subscriber/complainant is not acceptable.  This fact was informed to the complainant by letter dated.29.04.2017.  The complainant had never furnished sufficient security for disbursing the bid amount as per the terms and conditions of the Sabha.  Hence the there is absolutely no deficiency or defect in the service of the opposite parties.  The complainant herself is in default and negligent in doing her duties and responsibilities.  The opposite parties can disburse the bid amount only on fulfillment of the terms and conditions agreed by the subscriber.  Hence the opposite parties are justified in not disbursing the bid amount as she has not furnished sufficient security.  It is further submitted that the opposite parties are ready to disburse the bid amount as and when sufficient security is furnished by the complainant as per the terms and conditions of the kuri.  The complaint is filed only to harass and defame the opposite parties and get the bid amount without furnishing sufficient security for amount due towards future installments.  Hence there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties and the complainant had to be dismissed. 

          Complainant filed chief affidavit.  Opposite party filed application for cross examination of the complainant along with certain documents.  They had also filed an another application as IA/330/2017 for cause production of pay slip by the complainant.  Both applications were allowed, and the complainant produced their pay slip as per the order in IA/330/2017.  Complainant was cross examine as PW1.  Exts.A1 to A8 except A7 was marked.  Ext.A7 was marked subject to proof.  Opposite party also filed affidavit along with documents.  Complainant filed another application as IA/50/2018 seeking permission to cross examine the opposite parties.  Application was allowed.  1^st opposite party was examined as DW1.  Ext.B1 was marked from the side of the opposite party.  Evidence was closed and the matter was heard. 

The following issues that arise for consideration are.

1. Whether there is any deficiency of service from the part of opposite parties?
2. If so, what are the relief and cost?

Issues 1 & 2

          We have perused the documents as well as affidavits produced before the Forum.  The contention of the opposite party was that they had verified the salary certificate produced by the complainant (Ext.A3) and found that column number 5 of the salary certificate does not mentioned any of the deductions for provident fund, state level insurance, gratuity, loans if any etc. are not sure.  Hence they were not in a position to know about the actual net salary of the complainant or the surety.  Moreover, as per rule 8 of the terms and conditions of the kuri, the successful biders have to furnish sufficient security to the satisfaction of the foreman sabha and execute necessary documents guaranteeing future payments in the chit.  The subscribers are also bound to give the foreman sabha in writing in the prescribed form by specifying the nature of security intended to be furnished for the regular payment of future installments of the chit.  Hence, in this case the complainant has not furnished the details of the security. 

          According to the complainant until date she has remitted 64 installment, without making any default ie. Rs.5,000/- each month amounting to Rs.3,20,000/-.  The opposite party issued a performa of the salary certificate, which is sufficient security for withdrawing the auctioned amount.  As per the direction and instruction from the opposite party, the complainant who is a Central Government Employee working as a Postal Assistant in the Post and Telegraph Department draws a gross salary of Rs.31,829/- per month, the salary certificate along with the additional surety salary certificate of her husband Mr.Appu who is a Upper Division Clerk in State Government Employee, were arranged as the same with given performa and submitted at the opposite parties office at Sreekrishnapuram on 10.04.2017 as a sufficient security for withdrawing the auctioned amount.  The complainant further submits that she has never failed in remitting any instalments during all these years and more so the complainant has already deposited Rs.3,20,000/- with the opposite party against to the bid amount of Rs.3,99,900/-.  The complainant has insisted many time for drawing the auctioned amount with salary certificates as sufficient security, but the opposite party declined the same by demanding gold or title deed as securities.  On reading of the terms and conditions and general expectations etc. contained in the kuri issued by the opposite parties (Ext.B1), it is abundantly clear that the salary certificates issued from State Government and Central Government are sufficient securities for the purpose of withdrawing the bid amount.  Further contention of the complainant was that she had deposited Rs.3,35,000/- with the opposite party in the said kuri by believing that she will get back the money when she requires for her urgent needs.  But the opposite parties did not release the money without any reason for using the said amount for making more profit in their business.  The salary format form given by the opposite parties was filled and signed by the authorized signatory and was submitted to the opposite parties itself shows all details which required by the opposite parties.  The satisfaction of formen sabha doesn’t mean that they can demand anything for their satisfaction.  It should be reasonable, practical as per the law and equity.  The opposite parties does not exactly explain, what are the sufficient securities which shows that, the opposite parties can demand anything what they want for not releasing the bid amount.  At present complainant money is with the opposite parties without any securities from the opposite parties.  The actual difference between the deposited kuri amount and the auctioned amount is only Rs.64,900/- only.  So there is no reasonable ground for denying auctioned amount by the reason of insufficient security.  If the complainant makes any default for the repayment, the monthly installment can be deducted from her salary, if it demands by the opposite party.  There is no valid reason for denying the salary certificate as sufficient security.  Due to the above act of the opposite party complainant suffered loss and mental agony.  Moreover cross examination, the opposite party had admitted that the complainant had remitted 74 instalments without fail and the balance amount to be remitted amounts to only Rs.1,20,000/-. 

The salary certificates format was already provided by the opposite party but, the opposite party does not give any explanation regarding the insufficient security by the way of denying the salary certificates as security.  It is not justifiable and demanding gold or title deed as security is illegal and unhealthy practice which amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice from the part of the opposite party.  Hence the complaint is allowed and we direct the opposite party to pay an amount of Rs.3,99,900/- (Rupees three lakh ninety nine thousand nine hundred only) after accepting the salary certificates of complainant and her husband within one month from the date of receipt of this order.  We also direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) towards compensation for the mental agony suffered by the complainant along with Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) as cost of this litigations.        

The aforesaid amount shall be paid within one month from the date of receipt of this order; failing which the complainant is entitled to realize 9% interest p.a from the opposite party on the total amount due to him from the date of this order till realization.

          Pronounced in the open court on this the 21^st day of August2018.

                                                                                           Sd/-

                   Shiny.P.R

                   President 

                       Sd/-

                   Suma.K.P

                    Member

        Sd/-

    V.P.Anantha Narayanan

                  Member

Appendix

Exhibits marked on the side of complainant

Ext.A1          -  Original Kuri Book issued by opposite party to the complainant

Ext.A2          -  Original letter sent by opposite party to the complainant dated.29.04.17

Ext.A3          -  Photocopy of salary certificate of the complainant produced to the opposite

             party

Ext.A4          -  Photocopy of salary certificate

Ext,A5          -  Original Kuri Pass book issued by opposite party

Ext.A6          -  Photocopy of Circular (Circular No.33/2015 (BD) of Kerala State Financial

   Corporation dated.18.06.2015

Ext.A7          -  Original pay slip of the complainant (subject to proof)

Ext.A8          - Original Pay Slip of complainant’s surety

Exhibits marked on the side of Opposite parties
Ext.B1 -  Rules & Regulations of the kuri (Perungottukara Namboodhiri Yoga Kshema

             Sabha)

Witness examined on the side of complainant

PW1   -  Rajani.C

Witness examined on the side of opposite parties

DW1   -  Radhamani

Cost

          Rs.5,000/-