SMT.MOLYKUTTY MATHEW : MEMBER
This is a complaint filed by the complainant U/S 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 for an order directing the OP to pay Rs.90,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and other tension caused to the complainant for the deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP.
The brief of the complaint:
The complainant is having a chitty bearing No.53/2016-31 of OP. On 15/12/2020 the complainant auctioned the chitty and submitted all original documents before the OP’s office. But the OP stated that some more additional documents have been submitted before OP’s office then only to release the prize money. The complainant stated that she is having 6 other chitty in this office and the documents already submitted for surety bond in the same property. But the OP is not release the prize money within 60 days. The OP has paid the amount only after 3 months. In ordinate delay of the prize money the complainant has not paid the advance amount to the party already agreed to purchase a new house and property. The complainant is not fulfil the agreed condition and lost his business transaction. The act of OP the complainant caused much mental tension. The OP also stated that the acceptance of sufficient security by way of creating additional charge by extending the EM by LOC 6 against the property for releasing prize money in chitty 53/2016-31 held by the complainant. Moreover the OP’s institution demanding the certificate obtained from the bank to show that there is no liability of the complainant in the mortgaged property before the bank also. The complainant is also insulted by the bank authorities regarding the certificate. So the act of the Op, the complainant and her family caused much mental agony , hardship and financial loss. So there is deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP. Hence the complaint.
After filing this complaint notice issued to OP. Then the OP entered before the commission and filed his written version . the OP contended that the total sala of the chitty was Rs.10,00,000/- out of that amount the complainant auctioned the chitty on 15/12/2020 to deduct Rs.50,000/- has been adjusted to forman’s commission and Rs.1,15,000/- as auction discount. Thereafter on 9/2/2021 as per the direction of the complainant Rs.4.50,000/- was deposited in OP’s institution for one month as STD receipt No.1630 and Rs.35,598/- adjusted to other chitty’s loan account. The remaining balance amount Rs.3,49,402/- issued to complainant as per cheque No.127716 of OP’s Federal Bank A/c to complainant’s Pinarayi Gramin Bank account No.40439100012992. So the allegation of delay by OP stated in the complaint is not true. Moreover the complainant received the deposited amount Rs.4,50,000/- with interest as per the maturity date on 12/3/2021. On 12/3/2021 after deducting the arrears of other chitty the balance amount of Rs.4,00,000/- transferred to complainant’s A/c from OP’s South Indian Bank Thalassery branch No.101721. At the time of auctioning the chitty No.53/2016-31 of the complainant the combined liability of the complainant in to the OP’s institution is Rs.18,80,000/-. So the combined liability is more than 15,00,000/- the file is scrutinised by regional office at Kannur only on the basis of photocopies submitted by branch. The OP is guided by statutes, rules regulations and circulars issued by the authorities and there is no other option for the OP but to comply with those rules, regulations and circulars. There is no deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP. So the complaint may be dismissed.
On the basis of the rival contentions by the pleadings the following issues were framed for consideration.
- Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party?
- Whether the complainant is entitled for any relief?
- Relief and cost.
The evidence consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and Exts. A1 to A6 were marked . On OP’s side DW1 was examined and Exts.B1 &B2 marked.
Issue Nos.1 to 3 taken together:
The Complainant adduced evidence before the commission by submitting her chief affidavit in lieu of her chief examination to the tune of the pleadings in the complaint and denying the contentions in the version. She was cross examined as PW1 by the OP. According to the complainant the documents Exts.A1 to A6 were marked on her part to substantiate her case also. In Ext.A1 shows the description , Application Form VIII. Ext.A2 shows the certificate issued by OP. In Ext.A3 is the letter given from KSFE. In Ext.A4 is the details of Right to Information Act. Ext.A5 is the letter issued by OP to Gramin Bank Manager. In Ext.A6 is the notice issued by OP to complainant dtd.3/3/2021. In the evidence of PW1 she stated that “ കേസിനാസ്പദമായ കുറി എടുക്കുമ്പോൾ വേറെ ബാധ്യതകൾ KSFE യിൽ ഉണ്ടായിരുന്നു? ഉണ്ടായിരുന്നു. സ്വത്തിന്ർറെ അടിരേഖ ചോദിച്ചതാണ് കാരണം? അതെ. ആയതിന്ർറെ അടിരേഖ ബാങ്കിൽ ആയിരുന്നു. ചിട്ടിയുടെ ബാധ്യത 15 ലക്ഷം കഴിഞ്ഞാൽ റീജണൽ ഓഫീസിൽ നിന്നാണ് കാര്യങ്ങൾ ചെയ്യാറ്? അതെ. ബാധ്യത കൂടിയതുകൊണ്ടാണ് അടിരേഖ വേണം എന്ന് പറഞ്ഞത്. 102/17,51/12 എന്നീ ചിട്ടികളിൽ ബാധ്യത കേസിനാസ്പദമായ ചിട്ടിയിൽ നിന്ന് എടുത്ത് close ചെയ്യണമെന്ന് പറഞ്ഞിട്ടുണ്ട്? ശരിയാണ്. ആയതിന് ഞാൻ എഴുതി ഒപ്പിട്ട് കൊടുത്തിട്ടുണ്ട്. നിങ്ങൾക്ക് ചിട്ടിയുടെ പണം തന്നിരുന്നോ? ജാമ്യം ഇല്ലാത്തതിനാൽ KSFE യിൽ Fixed ആയി deposit ചെയ്തു. നിങ്ങൾ സ്ഥലവും വീടും വാങ്ങാൻ വേണ്ടിയാണ് എന്നതിന് agreement ഉണ്ടോ? ഞാൻ അഡ്വാൻസ് കൊടുത്തിട്ടില്ല അതുകൊണ്ട് agreement എഴുതിയിട്ടില്ല . So it is clear that there is no other evidence of PW1 to prove the purchase of new house and property. Moreover regarding the chitty payment DW1 produced Ext.B1 document dtd.9/2/2021 chitty No.53/16-31 clearly stated that as per cheque No.127716 dtd.9/2/2021 on Federal Bank for Rs.3,49,402/- net amount transferred. In this Ext.B1 document the chitty prize money payment voucher clearly stated the sala, other chitty suspense and other liability, new FD also noted. In Ext.B2 document the application for acceptance of security and the receipt is also signed by the complainant also. In Ext.B2 receipt the complainant affirmed all the procedure adopted by the OP in the presence of the witness. Moreover at the time of evidence DW1 was not cross examined by the complainant. The documents Exts.B1&B2 has not challenged by the complainant also. As per the evidence of DW1 the chitty No.53/16-31 was auctioned by the complainant on 15/12/2020 and as per the direction of the complainant on 9/2/2021 Rs.4,50,000/- was deposited in OP for one month as STD receipt No.1630, Rs.35,598/- was adjusted to other chitty’s loan account. The remaining balance amount Rs.3,49,402/- issued to complainant as per cheque No.127716 of OP’s Federal Bank a/c to complainant’s Gramin Bank A/c No.40439100012992 at Pinarayi dtd.9/2/2021. So as per the rules and regulations the OP is comply the order. There is no latches ,deliberate delay, deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP. So the issue No.1 found in favour of the OP and answered accordingly.
As discussed above due to the aforesaid deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP is not proved by the complainant. So the complainant is miserably failed to prove her case. Thus the issue Nos1&2 are also found against the complainant.
Hence the complaint is dismissed on the ground that the complainant is not proved the deficiency of service and unfair trade practice against the OP. So the compensation and cost not allowed.
In the result the complaint is dismissed. No order as to cost.
Exts:
A1- Application FormVIII
A2- Certificate issued by OP dtd.16/4/2021
A3- letter issued by Regional office to complainant
A4-Right to information details
A5-letter to Gramin Bank Manager
A6-Notice issued by OP dtd.3/3/2021
B1- Chitty payment voucher
B2-Application for acceptance of security
PW1-Sheela.K-complainant
DW1-Sugunan.P-OP
Sd/ Sd/ Sd/
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER
Ravi Susha Molykutty Mathew Sajeesh K.P
eva
/Forwarded by Order/
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
