BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

PRESENT

SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER

C.C. No. 76/2006 Filed on 10.03.2006

Dated : 31.12.2010

Complainant:

Ramesan Asari. S, Cherukonathu Veedu, Pothencode P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.

(By adv. S.V. Shaji)

Opposite parties:

1. Rajeevan, Former Manager, Backward Classes Development Corporation now working as Deputy Director, Directorate of Handloom & Textiles, Thiruvananthapuram.

    

2. Latha Gopalan, Project Assistant, Kerala State Backward Classes Development Corporation, Cotton Hill, Thiruvananthapuram.

(By adv. S.S. Vijayakumar)

This complaint is disposed of after the period so specified under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Though the case was taken up for orders by the predecessors of this Forum on 31.07.2006, the order was not prepared accordingly. This Forum assumed office on 08.02.2008. This O.P having been taken as heard on 30.10.2010, the Forum on 31.12.2010 delivered the following:

ORDER

SMT. BEENAKUMARI.A: MEMBER

Brief facts of the case are as follows: The complainant had applied for a loan for purchasing a Motor Cycle from the 1^st opposite party (Former Manager, Backward Classes Development Corporation) on 24.01.2005. Complainant alleges that though there has been sufficient fund to disburse loan, the opposite parties wilfully committed delay. Complainant further alleges that the 2^nd opposite party had demanded Rs. 1,000/- as bribe. But the complainant was not ready to give that amount. For that reason only the opposite parties did not issue loan to the complainant even though they had obtained relevant documents from the complainant. Therefore the complainant filed a petition before the Hon'ble Lok Ayuktha for the redressal of his grievances. As per the direction of the Lok Ayuktha the opposite parties disbursed the loan amount of RS. 41,500/- to the complainant on 08.08.2005. Subsequently the complainant requested the 1^st opposite party to issue signed Form No. 20 to him for the purpose of registration of the vehicle. But the opposite parties did not turn up to issue signed Form No. 20 to the complainant even though he had paid the prescribed fee. The complainant states that for that reason he had to face too much hardships and loss. Hence he claims compensation.

In this case the 1^st opposite party is the Ex-Manager of the Kerala State Backward Classes Development Corporation and 2^nd opposite party is a Project Assistant in the said corporation. In the version they have admitted the loan transaction of the complainant with the corporation. They stated that the complainant applied for the loan on 21.05.2005 and on the same day itself the loan was sanctioned. But due to the delay in furnishing security bond from the side of complainant the loan amount was disbursed only on 06.07.2005. The opposite party submitted that they have issued cheque to the complainant before the order passed by the Lok Ayuktha. In that order the Hon'ble Lok Ayuktha found no justification for the allegations made by the complainant that the opposite parties intentionally harassed him and delayed the disbursement of the amount. The opposite parties stated that the loan for Rs. 41,500/- applied for the purchase of the two wheeler on 21.05.2005 was sanctioned on that day itself and the complainant was asked to comply with the formalities and to produce the documents. The delay on the part of the complainant to produce the necessary documents and comply with the formalities resulted in the delay in disbursement of the amount to him. The opposite parties further stated that the complaint was wilfully made to harass the staff of the corporation by making false allegations before this Forum and hence they pray for the dismissal of the complaint.

Complainant has filed proof affidavit and examined him as PW1. Opposite parties cross examined the complainant. Through PW1 5 documents were marked as Exts. P1 to P5 and Exts. D1 to D3 were marked for opposite parties.

Points that would arise for consideration are:-

1. Whether the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?

2. Whether there has been deficiency in service from the side of opposite parties?

3. Whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs sought for?

Points (i) to (iii):- The case of the complainant is that he had applied for a loan to purchase a motor cycle from the Kerala State Backward Classes Development Corporation on 21.05.2005. Complainant alleged that the opposite parties intentionally harassed him and delayed the disbursement of the amount. And thereafter as per the order of Hon'ble Lok Ayuktha the opposite parties disbursed the loan. And thereafter the opposite parties did not turn up to issue Form No. 20 to the complainant to register his vehicle before the R.T.O. The complainant alleges that the opposite parties accepted Rs. 208/- from the complainant for that purpose. To prove the contentions of the complainant he has filed proof affidavit and produced 5 documents which were marked as Exts. P1 to P5. Ext. P1 is the copy of the letter issued by the complainant to the Manager, Kerala State Backward Classes Development Corporation on 24.04.2006 requesting Form No. 20. Ext. P2 is the letter dated 19.05.2006 issued by the complainant to the General Manager, Kerala State Backward Classes Development Corporation to give direction to the Manager to issue Form No. 20 to the complainant. Ext. P3 is the copy of letter issued by the Joint R.T.O, Nedumangadu to this Forum. In that letter the Joint R.T.O has stated that the certificate was prepared and the petitioner was given direction from the office to produce Form No. 20 along with attested proof of address matching the address in Form No. 21 in a week since the address proof attached in the application differs when compared with the address in the sale letter. The petitioner had not complied the direction so far. Ext. P5 is the photocopy of Form No. 20. In that document we can see the seal of the District Manager, Kerala State Backward Classes Development Corporation. But no signature can be seen. Ext. P4 is the copy of election identity card of the complainant. The address in the card is different from the other documents produced by the complainant.

In this case, from the side of opposite parties, 3 documents were produced and marked as Exts. D1 to D3. Ext. D1 is the copy of the order of Lok Ayuktha dated 01.03.2006. The finding of Lok Ayuktha is that “no justification for the allegation made by the complainant that the respondents intentionally harassed him and delayed the disbursement of the amount”. In the order the Hon'ble Lok Ayuktha had given a suggestion that “the complainant if so desired can pursue his claim if any for compensation before appropriate forum in appropriate proceedings”. Ext. D2 is the copy of letter dated 24.08.2005 issued by the opposite party to the complainant to hand over the duplicate key, R.C Book etc. to the office. Ext. D3 is the copy of letter issued by the Cheran Automobiles to the opposite party informing that the MC has been permanently registered by the complainant with Joint RTO, Kazhakkuttom and the RC Book, duplicate key and MC bill etc to be collected from the customer concerned. From this document we find that the complainant permanently registered his vehicle from Joint RTO, Kazhakkuttom and thereafter he approached the Nedumangadu Joint RTO with another address. From this we find that the complainant came before this Forum with a malafide intention without clean hands to harass the opposite parties only.

From the evidences adduced by both the parties we find that there is no deficiency in service from the side of opposite parties. And moreover in this case the processing fee obtained from the complainant was by the Kerala State Backward Classes Development Corporation Ltd. The opposite parties are only the employees of the Corporation. The Corporation is not a party in this case. Hence the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties also. From above mentioned discussions we cannot find any deficiency in service from the side of opposite parties. We find that the complainant filed this complaint without any bonafide. Hence the complaint is dismissed.

In the result, the complaint is dismissed.

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 31^st day of December 2010.

BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

jb

C.C. No. 76/2006

APPENDIX

I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS :

PW1 - Ramesan Asari

II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :

P1 - Copy of letter dated 24.04.2006 issued by complainant.

P2 - Copy of letter dated 19.05.2006 issued by complainant.

P3 - Copy of letter dated 23.03.2006

P4 - Copy of I.D Card.

P5 - Copy of certificate

III OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS :

NIL

IV OPPOSITE PARTY'S DOCUMENTS :

D1 - Copy of order of the Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.A. Mohammed Shafi, Upa Lok Ayuktha dated 01.03.2006.

D2 - Copy of letter dated 24.08.2005 issued by opposite party to complainant.

D3 - Copy of letter issued by Cheran Automobiles to the opposite party.

PRESIDENT

jb