KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL NO: 169/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 21..04..2010. PRESENT SMT. VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER SRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN :JUDICIAL MEMBER SRI.S. CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER 1. Proprietor, Suryadhanasree Chittees, Kuravilangadu branch, Kottayam. 2. Alice Collection Agent, Suryadhanasree Chittees, Kuravilangadu branch, : APPELLANTS Kottayam. 3. Lincy.C.L, Office Staff, Suryadhanasree Chittees, Kuravilangadu branch, Kottayam. (By Adv: Sri.J.S.Asokkumar) Vs. Philip.M, Edasseril house, Ushavoor East.P.O, : RESPONDENT Pin-686 634. JUDGMENT SHRI.M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER The above appeal is preferred against the order dated:27/2/2010 on the file of CDRF, Kottayam in CC:262/09. The appellants were the opposite parties and the respondent was the complainant in the said CC:262/09 which was filed alleging deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties in disbursing the assured bonus of Rs.1000/- to the complainant being the subscriber of the chitty conducted by the 1st opposite party/Sooryadhanasree chitties. We heard the learned counsel for the appellants/opposite parties. He submitted his arguments based on the grounds urged in the memorandum of the present appeal and requested for admitting this appeal on the file of this Commission. There is no dispute that the respondent/complainant was a subscriber to the weekly chitty conducted by the 1st opposite party/Sooryadhanasree chitties. The 1st opposite party is the proprietor and opposite parties 2 and 3 are the staff of the 1st opposite party. The complainant paid the entire subscription of Rs.10,000/- towards the said weekly chitty by remitting Rs.200/- per week for a total of 50 weeks. The definite case of the respondent/complainant was that he was entitled to get Rs.1000/- by way of bonus. The opposite parties also admitted the fact that the subscriber to the said chitty is entitled for Rs.1000/- by way of bonus. But the definite case of the opposite parties is that a defaulted subscriber will not get the assured bonus of Rs.1000/-. It is also the case of the opposite parties that the respondent/complainant was paid Rs.500/- by way of bonus and they withheld Rs.500/- because of the default committed by the complainant in remitting the subscriptions within the stipulated time. But there is nothing on record to show that a subscriber who committed default or delayed payment is not entitled for the assured bonus of Rs.1000/-. In the absence of any such evidence forthcoming from the side of the opposite parties, the claim of the complainant for the bonus of Rs.1000/- is to be upheld. The Forum below has rightly held that there was deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties in not paying the entire bonus of Rs.1000/- to the complainant/subscriber. The direction given by the Forum below to pay the balance bonus of rs.500/- to the complainant is to be upheld. Hence we do so. The Forum below has also awarded compensation of Rs.1500/- with cost of Rs.1000/-. The complainant was compelled to move the Forum below by filing the complaint in CC:262/09 because of the deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. It is to be noted that the opposite parties by their negligence and omission to pay the assured bonus caused inconvenience to the complainant. So, the opposite parties are to be made liable to pay compensation and cost to the complainant. So, the Forum below has rightly ordered compensation of Rs.1500/- with cost of Rs1000/-. Thus, the present appeal deserves dismissal at the admission stage itself. In the result the appeal is dismissed. The impugned order dated:27/2/2010 passed by CDRF, Kottayam in CC:262/09 is confirmed. M.V. VISWANATHAN :JUDICIAL MEMBER VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER S. CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR: MEMBER VL. | 
