30th day of September 2014
C.C.74/10 filed on 5/2/10
Complainant: Jini.K.L., W/o.Jose, Kallikkadan House,
P.O.Kodannur, Thanikkamunayam, Thrissur.
(By Adv.Antony Pellissery, Thrissur)
Respondents: 1. M/s.Suryavilasam Kuries & Loans (P) Ltd.,
Kanimangalam, Thrissur, rep. by
Managing Director, K.M.Surendran, Kottiyattil
House, Kanimangalam, Thrissur.
2. . K.P.Jose, S/o.Thoma, Ariimboor House,
P.O.Kanimangalam,Thrissur.
3. M.V.Vijayan, Melveettil House,
P.O.Kaimamgalam, Thrissur.
4. K.Viswanathan, Kizhakoottil House, Panamukku,
Nedupuzha.P.O.
5. P.A.George, Perinchery House, Chiyyaram.P.O.,
Thrssur.
6. P.G.Babu, Perinchery House, Chiyyaram.P.O.,
Thrssur.
(By Adv.A.D.Benny, Thrissur for R5&R6)
7. T.K.Krishnan, Thazhathuveettil House,
P.O.Nedupuzha, Panamukku, Thrissur.
8. K.K.Venugopalan, Kainoor House,
P.O.Koorkkenchery, Thrissur.
(By Advs.K.Gopinadhan&M.Reghu, Thrissur for R2,R3,R4&R8)
O R D E R
By Smt.Padmini Sudheesh, President :
The case of complainant is that the complainant was a kuri subscriber of respondents. She had remitted 40 instalments of the kuri and later unable to remit the amounts because of non-functioning of the institution. She had remitted Rs.24,000/- in total. Even if demanded to get the amount no amount is given. At last on 7/7/07 Rs.2,000/- was paid and it was acknowledged in the pass book. The balance amount is not paid so far. Hence the complaint.
2. The counter averments of 2nd,3rd,4th and 8th respondents are that it is true that the complainant was a kuri subscriber. But it is denied the non functioning of the institution. The averments in the complaint are incorrect and these respondents are not liable to pay any amount. The counter averments of 5th and 6th respondents are to the effect that these respondents were retired from the institution and paper publication was done. The institution is liable to pay Rs.2lakhs to these respondents. These respondents are not liable to pay any amount. Hence dismiss.
3. Points for consideration are that :
1) Whether the complaint is barred by limitation?
2) If not was there any deficiency in service committed by respondents?
3) Other reliefs and costs?
4. Evidence consists of oral testimony of RW1, Exhibit P1, Exhibits R1 and R2.
5. The first point is to be considered is the maintainability of the complaint. Exhibit P1 is the pass book produced by complainant and there is acceptance of Rs.2,000/- by the complainant on 7/7/07. So the complaint should be filed within two years from that day. The last remittance of the amount as per Exhibit P1 was on 21/7/06. After that the payment of amount was 7/7/07. It is seen that the complaint is barred by limitation as per Section 24(A) of Consumer Protection Act. As per Section 24(A) the complaint should be filed within two years from the date of cause of action. In these circumstance there is no other way except to dismiss the complaint.
6. In the result the complaint stands dismissed.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum this the 30th day of September 2014.
Sd/- Padmini Sudheesh, President.
Sd/-
Sheena.V.V, Member.
Sd/-
M.P.Chandrakumar, Member
Appendix
Complainant’s Exhibits
Ext.P1 Pass book
Respondents Exhibits
Ext.R1 Copy of Memorandum of Association
Ext.R2 Copy of paper publication
Respondents witness
RW1 – Babu.P.G.
Id/-
President