CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM.
Present
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President
Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member
CC No.286/09
Saturday, the 29th day of January, 2011
Petitioner : K.C. Krishnakumar,
Kunnampallil House,
Puzhavathu,
Changansserry.
(Ad. M.K. Sajikumar)
Vs.
Opposite party : P.T. Das,
Pulickaparampil House,
Amayannoor PO,
Ayarkunnam, Manarkadu.
(Adv.Francis Jacob K)
ORDER
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President
The case of the petitioner, filed on 23-09-09, is as follows:-
The opposite party is a money lender engaged in money lending business in the name and style “Pulickalparampil Finance”, Market Road, Kottayam. When petitioner is in urgent need of money he approached the opposite party and availed a loan for Rs.10,000/- on 24/1/05. The opposite party agreed to give loan to the petitioner on condition that petitioner should give 3 signed blank cheques and a revenue stamp affixed stamp paper worth Rs. 50/-, blank stamp paper, from 2 sureties. Further more opposite party insisted petitioner that one among the surety should be a govt.employee. In order to satisfy the conditions of the opposite party petitioner approached his brother-in-law one P.S. Sreekumar, an Excise guard and his wife Soumya. Due to the compulsion of the petitioner said Sreekumar and his wife given the documents demanded by the opposite party. The monthly interest of the loan was Rs.3000/-. According to the petitioner he is regularly paying interest for 3 months and closed the account by remitting entire amount with interest. At the time of closure of the transaction petitioner demanded the returns of the documents given by the sureties, which were given as security. Bu the opposite party did not returned the documents. Opposite party stated that a Police raid was conducted in his office and all the documents were ceased by the Police and were irrecoverably lost from his custody. Further more he assured that he will not use these documents against the sureties because the transaction was closed. Subsequently petitioner understood that the opposite party was filing suits both civil and criminal against P.S. Sreekumar and his wife with help of benami petitioners. Petitioner states that act of the opposite party in not returning the documents of the sureties which were given as security after closure of the entire loan transaction amounts deficiency in service. So the petitioner prays for a direction to the opposite party to return the documents along with a compensation of Rs. 5000/- and cost of the proceedings.
Opposite party entered appearance and filed version contending that the petition is not maintainable. According to the opposite party petitioner is not a consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act. The averment that opposite party is a licensed money lender is admitted. According to the petitioner the matter pertaining to the suit is of civil nature and is not maintainable before this Forum. The availing of loan of Rs.10,000/- to the petitioner is denied. Further more the entrustment of the blank cheque, blank stamp paper and document of any other kind etc, of surety, as security, is denied by the opposite party. According to the opposite party if said PS. Sreekumar and his wife obtained money and not repaid the same case must have been filed against them by their creditors. Opposite party contented that there is no deficiency in service on their part and they prayed for dismissal of the petition if their costs
Points for determination are:
i) Whether the petition is maintainable or not?
ii) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?
iii) Relifs and costs?
Evidence in this case consists of affidavit filed by both parties and Exts.A1 to
Ext.A6.
Point No.1
During trial opposite party filed IA 36/10 raising the contention of the maintainability and that petition is to be disposed. According to the opposite party petitioner is not a consumer because the matter pertaining to the lis is of a civil nature and is not maintainable before this Forum. Further more petitioner have no knowledge of the matters alleged in the complaint. The case of the petitioner in a nut shell is that petitioner entrusted some documents of the surety with the opposite party and after closure of the loan the same has not returned to the petitioner. In our view since the allegation in the petition is with regard to hiring of a service for consideration. Petitioner is a consumer and the petition is maintainable. So point no.1 is found accordingly.
Point No.2
The crux of the case of the petitioner is that opposite party has not returned the documents which were entrusted by the surety of the petitioner, at the time of availing of loan, to the petitioner after closure of the transaction.
‘Deficiency’ is defined in section 2 (g) of the Consumer Protection Act as any fault, imperfection, shortcomings or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service
So first of all petitioner shall establish by cogent evidence that there is a contract or service between the petitioner and the opposite party. Opposite party totally denied the availing of the loan and entrustment of the documents as alleged by the petitioner in his petition. Further more the specific case of the opposite party is that the petitioner is not liable for any suit or proceedings initiated against P.S. Sreekumar or his wife Soumya Sreekumar by any of their creditors. So in our view petitioner has not adduced any evidence to prove that there is a contract or hiring of service between the petitioner and the opposite party. So without any evidence of contract or service we cannot attribute any deficiency against the opposite party. So point No.2 is found accordingly.
Point No.3
In view of the findings in point no.1 and 2 petition is dismissed. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case no costs and compensation is ordered.
Dictated by me transcribed by the Confidential Assistant corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 29th day of January, 2011
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President Sd/-
Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member Sd/-
Appendix
Documents of the petitioner
Ext.A1.Copy of the plaint in OS 98/09
Ext.A2-Copy of the summons in OS 98/09
Ext.A3-Copy of the summons in CC 1865/07
Ext.A4-Copy of proclamation in ST 2064/07
Ext.A5-Copy of the plaint in a case between Anilkumar and PS Sreekumar.
Ext.A6 Copy of the complaint filed by P.T Das against Soumya Sreekumar
Documents of opposite party
Nil
By Order,
Senior Superintendent.
