KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSALCOMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
APPEALNO. 611/2005
JUDGMENT DATED 22.12.2010
PRESENT:-
JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT
M.K. ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER
APPELLANTS
Chorus Kuries & Loans(P) Ltd.,
Chorus Building, Guruvayoor Road,
Kunnamkulam Road, Rep. by Managing Director,
K.T. Sim on, Kunnamkulam Village, Thrissur District.
(Rep. by Adv. Sri. S. Chandra Mohan Nair)
Vs
RESPONDENT
Raghavan V.I,,
Vallikkattiry House,
Cheruvathany Desom, Anjoor Post,
Pincode. 680 523
JUDGMENT
SHRI. M.K. ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER
This appeal prefers from the order passed by the CDRF, Thrissur in O.P. No. 216/2003 dated 15.2.2005. The appellant is the opposite party and the respondent is the complainant. The appellant prefers this appeal under the order directed the opposite party to give an interest @ 15% till the maturity of the kuri and also to pay Rs. 500/- as cost to the complainant
In short the complainant deposited Rs. 90,000/- on 3.5.1999 with the opposite party for 10 years. The deposit matures on 21.12.2008. The said deposit was made under the kuri security deposit towards CKN 451. 21st day of Pooval kuri, ticket No. 27 Hence stipulate 15% interest per annum. The respondent sent notice reducing interest rate to 12% with effect from 1.1.2002 from 18.4.2002, and on 28.8.2002, the complainant sent registered notice demanding that rate of interest which was stipulated at the time of deposit. . According to the complainant the opposite party have no right to reduce the agreed interest rate that the petitioner is entitled to get interest @ 15% per annum is agreed in the deposit rate and also entitled for compensation and costs from the opposite parties.
The opposite party admitted in the counter that the deposit as security for future installments of the kuri and the complainant as at liberty to withdraw the deposit amount after giving sufficient security for future installments. Moreover the deposit was made based upon the kuri security bound and the same was to the complainant. The complaint is premature. The opposite party is entitled to change the interest rate as per the kuri security bond. The complainant is not entitled to get 15% interest. The complaint is liable to be dismissed.
The Forum below answered the points on the basis of the documentary evidence which produced and marked by the complainant as Ext. P1 to P3 and answered the points of dispute. The opposite party was contented that the interest rate was reduced as per the direction of the financial departments and Reserve Bank of India. But they did not produce such documents. Therefore the dividends taken by the opposite party is not legally sustainable. The Forum below found that the opposite party is liable to give the agreed rate of interest to the complainant to then the above impugned order passed by the Forum below.
On this day this appeal came before this commission for final hearing. We heard counsels for the respondent /opposite parties and perused the available evidence from the case bundle. The counsel for the appellant argued that the Forum below failed to appreciate that this deposit is nothing but an arrangement done by the complainant and opposite parties for the payment of future installments of the kuri of the complainant. The security deposit is a deposit which is secure the contractual obligation on due remittance to the kuri obligation towards the company. Hence the respondent bank is not in a position to utilize the deposit amount under the kuri security amount and made profit since there is the restriction to deposit the kuri security amount in a financial or scheduled banks. Hence the interest offered to the complainant is up to the date of closing the security deposit by the party. Another point argued by the counsel for the appellant is that the Forum below ought to have fond that the opposite party/company issued a notice sufficiently in advance with an offer to refund the amount to the petitioner. If he has not agreed about the rate of interest offered to the respondent/company.
We are having a view that the appellant/opposite party given an opportunity to the complainant either ready to continue the interest on the reduced rate of interest or to withdraw the deposit. The complainant can approach the Forum below for these allegations as per the Ext. B2 document. But the complainant was estopped to take such allegation. His such right is estopped by the law of estoppel. The Forum below only discussed that appellant/opposite party did not produce any circular or any orders from the Reserve Bank or the Financial Department of the Government of Kerala to substantiate to their case. It is not necessary to hear only a simple question. On the other hand the opposite party gives an opportunity to the complainant to withdraw the deposits or they will ready to give compensation to their depositors as per the reduced rate of interest. We are seeing that this order passed by the Forum below is not accordance with the principles of law and evidence. So it is not legally sustainable.
In the result, this appeal is allowed and set aside the impugned order passed by the Forum below and both parties are direct to suffer their respective costs. Points of the appeal discussed one by one and answered accordingly.
M.K. ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER
JUSTICE K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT
ST
