CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM

Present

Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath  P. President

Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member

K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member

CC No. 338/2009

Friday, 29^th  day,  of October , 2010

Petitioner                                              :           C.P Assez Rawther,

                                                                        Chempakasseril,

Kangazha,

Idayirikkipuzha P.O

Kottayam.

(By Adv. K.P. Suresh)

Opposite parties                                   :    1)    Muhammed Ali (President)

                                                                        Vadakkekara, Kangazha,

                                                                        Idayirikkipuzha P.O

                                                                        Kottayam.

2)        A.E Saleem Anchaniyil,

Secretary, Vadakkekara,

Idayirikkipuzha P.O

Kangazha, Kottayam.

3)        Jose, (Cashier)

Kondodikkal, Anchaniyil,

Idayirikkipuzha P.O

Kangazha, Kottayam.

(By Adv. Varughese CC)

O  R  D  E  R

Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President.

Case of the petitioner filed on 7..11..2009 is as follows:

Petitioner was a subscriber of a fortnight chitty, conducted by the opposite parties in the locality were the petitioner’s resides.  First opposite party is the president of the above mentioned chitty.  Second opposite party is the secretary and 3^rd opposite party is the cashier of the above mentioned chitty.  Petitioner  had subscribed Rs. 12,500/- towards chitty.  As per offer given by the opposite parties petitioner is entitled to get chitty amount as well as the share of the profit made by

-2-

conducting the chitty.  Petitioner had received Rs. 1,000/- at   early stage of the chitty from the opposite parties.  Petitioner approach the opposite parties to get the chitty amount and the share of the profit made by conducting the chitty which comes to an amount of Rs. 3,000/-  But the opposite parties failed to give the above said sum of Rs. 14,500/- saying that one Mr. Noushad had already  received the amount in the  complainant’s name.  Petitioner lodged a complaint  before the D.S.P Kottayam.  Before the police authority opposite parties promised to give the  this complainant Rs. 12,500 on or before 2..10..2009.  But the opposite parties gave only Rs. 10,000/-.  Complainant approached the opposite parties for the balance amount but they evaded payment.  On 9..10..2009 complainant issued a lawyers notice demanding 1^st  opposite party demanding Rs. 5550/- and for settlement of  he dispute but the opposite party has  not  heed to the demands of the petitioner. According to the petitioner act of opposite party amounts  deficiency in service .  So, he prays for a direction to the opposite party to pay Rs. 5500/- to the petitioner.    Petitioner claims Rs. 5,000/- as compensation along with 12% interest and cost of the proceedings.

Opposite parties entered appearance and filed joint version contenting that   petition is not maintainable.  According to the opposite party they never conducted any chitty business any where  in the locality.  Complainant and opposite parties are neighbours and friends.  One Mr. Noushad who was  the tenant  of the complainant formed self shared chitty like as  “Ekadesi chitties” in the local limit of the Kangazha rural area.  Noushad was  absconded from

-3-

Kangazha .  Petitioner,  C.P Asseez Rawther and  Noushad had some transactions with the chitties.  Opposite parties never involved in the said transactions .  Present  petition is a story created by the complainant for the purpose of this complaint.  Opposite party admitted that Karukachal police brought the petitioner and opposite parties to the station and demanded money.   Due to the continuous   harassment of the Karukachal police  Opposite parties were bound to pay Rs. 10,000/- for escaping from the police harassment.  Opposite party duly replied  to the lawyers notice.   Opposite party contented that there is no deficiency in service on their part.  They pray for dismissal of the petition with their costs. 

Points for determinations are:

i)                    Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?

ii)                   Relief and costs?

Evidence in this case consists of affidavit filed by both parties and Ext. A1 to A3 documents on the side of the petitioner and Ext. B1 and B2 series documents on the side of the opposite party.

Point No. 1

            Petition is for refund of the amount  given  by the petitioner to the opposite party for the  subscription of the chitty.  According to the petitioner he is entitled for an amount of Rs. 14,500/-.  Out of  Rs.  14,500/-, Rs. 10,000/- was given by the opposite party as per the compromise arrived with  the  opposite parties at the office of DSP, Kottayam.  Opposite party totally denied about the conduct of the

-4-

 chitty.  According to the opposite party they never had any chitty transaction with the petitioner.  It is surprising to note that the opposite party in   Ext. B2 reply notice, issued as reply to the Ext. A1 lawyers notice  never stated any where that they have no such chitty transaction .  In Ext. B2 reply notice opposite party evaded from the liability of paying the demanded amount stating that he is not liable for paying any amount.  No where in Ext. B2 opposite party denied about the chitty transaction between petitioner and opposite party as alleged by the petitioner in Ext. A1 notice.  Opposite party produced the receipt alleged to be given by the petitioner. Petitioner objected marking of the document on the ground that the document is not  written  by the petitioner and since it is made before the police it has no evidentiary value. From Ext. B1 it can be seen that opposite party admitted that there is a chitty transaction and out of the transaction   Rs. 10,000/-  was  given to the petitioner.  Opposite  parties case with regard to the alleged execution of Ext. B1 is that Karukachal police brought   the opposite parties to the police station and demanded money from them.  Due to continuous   harassment of the Karukachal police opposite party’s were  bound to pay Rs. 10,000/- to the complainant.  In Ext. B1 it is stated that the amount was given as refund of the chitty amount.  In our view the allegation of the petitioner that Rs. 10,000/-  is given to the petitioner   due to the continuous harassment of the police  is not believable .  In our view act of the opposite party in non  refund of the chitty amount remitted by   the petitioner  is an act of    deficiency in service.  So, point  No. 1 found accordingly.

-5-

Point No. 2

            In view of the finding in point No. 1, petition is allowed.  Petitioner is entitled for  reliefs,  sought for. 

In the result opposite parties are ordered to pay the petitioner an amount of Rs. 5500/-.    Opposite parties are jointly and severely liable for the same .  Opposite party is   ordered to pay an amount of Rs. 1,000/- as cost of the proceedings.  Since there is no evidence with regard to loss and sufferings no compensation is ordered.  Order shall be complied with within one month of the receipt of this order.  If the order is not complied,  as directed the award amount will carry 9% interest from  the date of filing of the petition till realization.

Dictated by me transcribed by the Confidential Assistant corrected by me and

pronounced in the Open Forum on this the  29th  day of October, 2010.

Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President  Sd/-    

  Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member                  Sd/-

  Sri. K.N Radhakrishnan, Member                   Sd/-

APPENDIX

Document for the Petitioner

Ext. A1:            Copy of lawyers notice Dtd: 14..10..2009

Ext. A2:            Postal receipt

Ext. A3:            Postal A.D

Documents for the Opposite party

Ext. B1:            Receipt Dtd: 2..10..2009

Ext. B2:            Reply notice Dtd: 3..11..2009.

Ext. B2(a)        Postal acknowledgement card

Ext. B2(b)        Postal receipt.  

By Order,

Senior Superintendent

Despatched on  /  Received on

amp/6cs