Kerala

StateCommission

A/08/277

KVVES - Complainant(s)

Versus

O Ranjini - Opp.Party(s)

C S Rajmohan

30 Apr 2010

ORDER

   KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

 

 

FA Nos. 277/2008 & 590/2009

 

JUDGMENT DATED:  30-04-2010

 

PRESENT:

 

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU              :  PRESIDENT

SHRI. M.K. ABDULLA SONA                           :  MEMBER

 

 

FA No. 277/2008

 

The Secretary,

Vyapari Vyavasayi Ekopana Samithi,                :  APPELLANT

Thaliparamba, Kannur.

 

          (Rep. by Adv. Sri. Hari. S. Nair & Sri. C.S Rajmohan)

 

                   Vs

 

O. Renjini, D/o Karunakaran,

Nalleri House, Near Kavitha Theatre,                :  RESPONDENT

Kannur.

 

 

FA No. 590/2009

 

O. Renjini, D/o Karunakaran,

Nalleri House, Near Kavitha Theatre,                :  APPELLANT           

Kannur.

 

                   Vs

                                                                            

The Secretary,

Vyapari Vyavasayi Ekopana Samithi,                :  RESPONDENT

Thaliparamba, Kannur.

                            

COMMON JUDGMENT

 

 

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU:   PRESIDENT

 

 

            The appellant in FA 277/2008 is the opposite party in OP 88/2003 in the file of CDRF, Kannur.  The appellant is under orders to pay a sum of Rs. 25,000/- as compensation and costs of Rs. 2,000/- to the complainant.  The appellant is also directed to furnish the entire details regarding the deposits relating to shop room door Nos. 859, 860 and 861 to the complainant.

 

            2.    The appellant in FA 590/2009 is the complainant in OP No. 88/2003.  The appeal is filed claiming enhanced compensation of Rs. 4,75,000/-, which has been claimed in the complaint.

 

          3.      The case of the complainant is that she is the Proprietor of Kerala Steels, Thaliparamba.  The respondent is the Secretary of the Vyapari Vyavasayi Ekopana Samithi (herein after to be mentioned as the Samithi), Thaliparamba. According to the complainant Kerala Steels is one of the members of the above Samithi.  It is mentioned in the complaint that the Kerala Steels was established in 1975-76.  The shop rooms of the above are Municipal Door Nos. 859, 860 and 861.  The licence of the above establishment is in the name of the complainant till the year 1993-94.  According to the complainant Sri.O.C. Premarajan who is the brother of the petitioner used to assist her in running the shop and that later on he looted the assets of the petitioner and tried to create documents to convert the establishment into his own name. Hence she filed OS No. 66/94 in Sub Court, Payyannur.  While so, on 19-07-2001 at about 12 a.m when he went to the shop the opposite party ie, the Secretary of the Samithi along with about 100 persons entered into the shop and threatened the complainant, pulled down the shutters and created a scene. The incident has resulted in much damage to her self respect to which she has assessed a sum of Rs. 25,000/- as damages.  It is the contention that her shop was having daily deposits, building deposits, fixed deposits and other deposits with the Samithi.  She filed a copy application with respect to the above transaction by registered post on 08-08-2001.  But no reply has been received so far.  There was a lot of deposits and other transactions with the opposite party Samithi.  It is alleged that the opposite party colluded with the wife of the brother of the complainant to drive the petitioner from her shop.  She has calculated the loss in this regard as Rs. 4,50,000/-.  A sum of Rs. 4,75,000/- is claimed as compensation.

          4.      On the other hand, the opposite party has filed version disputing the maintainability of the complaint.  It is mentioned that to the knowledge of the opposite party Sri.O.C. Premarajan was the Proprietor of the shop and after his death his wife T.K. Rajamani is the licensee and she is a member of the Samithi of which the opposite party is the Secretary.  The opposite party is not aware of the civil dispute between the late Premarajan and the complainant or about OS No. 66/94 in the file of Sub Court, Payyannur.  It is denied that on 19-07-2001 at about 4 p.m the opposite party along with 100 others threatened the complainant etc.  It is stated that on 19-07-2001 the opposite party and the other office bearers of the Samithi got information that the complainant is creating problems in the shop of Smt. T.K. Rajamani.  As Rajamani being a member of the Association, opposite parties and other office bearers went to the shop.  They saw the complainant shouting and threatening the licensee.  The complainant was behaving in an unruly manner and disturbing the business in the shop.  The opposite party and other office bearers attempted to settle amicably the dispute.  The Thaliparamba Dy.S.P who has been passing through the road came over there seeing the crowd and advised the complainant not to create any disturbance in the shop.  It is also stated that the Samithi is not receiving any deposits as alleged and that the alleged complainant’s shop was not having any deposits with the Samithi.  It is admitted that a letter dated 08-08-2001 was received but no reply was sent as the case of deposits etc. was imaginary.  It is denied that the opposite party has colluded with the wife of the complainant’s brother.

 

          5.      The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PW1, DW1 and Exts. A1 to A17.

 

          6.      The Forum has relied on the testimony of PW1, the complainant and found that the reputation of the complainant stood damaged on account of the act of the opposite party and others entering the shop and creating problems.  It was found that in this regard the complainant is entitled for compensation.  It was also held that the opposite party was bound to given details regarding the deposits or at least give a reply.  Hence on this ground also the complainant is entitled for compensation and hence ordered to pay a compensation of Rs. 25,000/- and costs of Rs. 2,000/-.

 

          7.      It is pointed out by the Counsel for the appellant/opposite party that there is no consumer/service provider relationship between the complainant and the opposite party and hence the jurisdiction of the Forum is not attracted.  It is also pointed out that the complainant has not produced any documents to show that she is a member of the Samithi or that the shop is having any deposits with the opposite party.  DW1 the Secretary of the Samithi has denied the existence of any such deposits.  We find that the compensation has been ordered also for creating disturbances in the shop of the complainant by the opposite party and others.  We find that CDRF is not a Civil Court and remedies in tort is not within the province of the CDRF.  The complainant has not produced any document that would show that she is a member of the Samithi nor has she produced any documents that would show that her shop is having deposits with the Samithi.  The documents produced by the complainant is rather in order to establish that she is the Proprietrix of the shop.  During the appellate stage she has produced the judgment of the High Court of Kerala in RSA No. 1211/2006 over AS 97/2003 of District Court, Thalassery over the judgment in OS 66/94 of Sub Court, Payyannur.  As per the order of the High Court in second appeal filed by the defendant/Rajamani W/o Premarajan the appeal stands dismissed.  The claim set up by the appellant/Rajamani has been turned down.  Hence as such it appears that the complainant has been declared as the Proprietrix of the shop.  The Counsel for the appellant/opposite party herein as stated that the shop is not functioning at present, which has been admitted by the complainant as well.  All the same, we find that the ownership of the shop was in dispute and Rajamani, the wife of the brother of the complainant only was the member of the Samithi according to the opposite party.  The opposite party has also denied the existence of any deposit for the shop with the opposite party.  No evidence was also produced by the complainant to prove that there were deposits for the shop with the opposite party.  In the circumstances, we find that the order with respect to the compensation and costs cannot be sustained.  Hence the order of the Forum is set aside.  All the same, the complainant will be at liberty to institute appropriate proceedings for realization of amounts in deposit, if any with the opposite party before the appropriate Forum. 

         

In the result, FA No. 277/2008 is allowed and FA No. 590/2009 is dismissed.

          The office is directed to forward the LCR along with the copy of this order to the Forum urgently.

 

        JUSTICE K.R. UDAYABHANU :  PRESIDENT

 

        M.K. ABDULLA SONA                    :  MEMBER