25/08/2011
O R D E R
By Smt. Padmini Sudheesh, President
The complainant had subscribed ½ ticket kuri in the respondents company as per pass book No.20 and paid 21 instalments. The total sala of the said kuri was Rs.3,37,500/-. On 15/10/04 the complainant had auctioned the kuri for an amount of Rs.88,475/- and as per the kuri terms the amount should be paid on 25/12/04. The complainant submitted an application on 25/11/04 for getting the amount along with salary certificate of his wife who is a High School Teacher. But the respondents refused to release the amount and complainant submitted an application with a request to retain future instalment amount with the respondents as fixed deposit and pay balance amount. Even after that no amount was paid. The complainant is an auto rickshaw driver and he was staying 20km away from kuri company and has gone to company from 1/1/05 to 25/1/05 daily and lost Rs.6,250/-. This act of the respondents is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. So a lawyer notice was caused to issue and respondents accepted the notice and sent reply with false allegations. Hence the complaint.
2. The counter averments of respondents are that there is no ½ ticket arrangement in the kuries conducted by the respondents. The complainant and Suresh, former Managing Director, S/o.Charuvil Krishnan jointly had subscribed ticket No.20 in TKJ No.21 kuri. The kuri was auctioned by the complainant and Suresh. In law they are single person and single kuri ticket. A legal fiction to that effect is there. As stated earlier there is no ½ ticket system and that is not practical also. The kuri was auctioned jointly by its joint subscribers on 15/10/04. The said Suresh has four other kuries and he is a defaulter on those kuries and he owes money to the respondents company in connection with these defaulted kuries also. The respondents have got a lien over the amount of this auctioned kuri in connection with the liabilities of Suresh. Apart from that complainant has not furnished sufficient and necessary securities for release of the entire amount of kuri auctioned. The kuri amount jointly auctioned cannot be split and severally given to one person. Kuri ticket is single ticket irrespective of the fact that it is subscribed together by two persons. The respondents can not do partition job. The respondents in law can not give ½ amount to one as there is no ½ ticket system prevalent with the respondents company. There is absolutely no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. The complainant alone is not entitled to get any amount from the respondents in his own capacity. Hence dismiss.
3. The points for consideration are that :
1) Whether the complainant is entitled to get the amount claimed?
2) Other reliefs and costs?
4. The evidence adduced consists of oral testimonies of PW1, RW1 and Exhibits P1 to P8, R1 to R4 and X1 series to X2.
5. It is the case of complainant that he had subscribed ½ ticket kuri as per pass book No.20 and paid 21 instalments and was auctioned by him for Rs.88,475/-. But this amount has not been paid to him by the respondents by stating there is no ½ ticket system in the kuri and he is alone not entitled to get the auctioned amount. The complainant is examined as PW1 and Exhibits P1 to P8 are marked on his part. RW1 is examined on the part of respondents and documents also marked.
6. It is the case of respondents that PW1 and the former Managing Director of kuri company, Suresh, S/o. Charuvil Krishnan jointly subscribed ticket No.20 and it was auctioned by both. According to respondents in law both are single person and the kuri ticket is single kuri ticket. They categorically stated that there is no ½ ticket system and PW1 alone is not entitled to get any amount from the respondents in his own capacity. According to them there is a legal fiction and it is not practical also. At the same time they admitted that the kuri was joined by PW1 and Suresh jointly. RW1 deposed that
So it is very clear that the respondents are well aware of the remittance of amount by PW1 alone and they have entered the remittances in Exhibit X1 register. It is true that the kuri is in the name of Charuvil Suresh. There is not the name of PW1 in the kuri register.
7. It is the case of respondents that Suresh Cheruvil was the former Managing Director of respondents company and has four other kuries and he is a defaulter of those kuries and owes money to the respondents company in connection with the defaulted kuries also. So according to them the respondents have got a lien over the amount and they auctioned the kuri in connection with the liabilities of Suresh. As per Exhibit X1 there are mentioning of defaults from the said Suresh. But there is no evidence to show that the respondents have initiated legal action against him for realization of the amount due. Without taking any action against him directly respondents are trying to penalize PW1 for the loss for so many years.
8. It is the version of RW1 that there is no kuri in the name of PW1. It is true and as per Exhibit X1 there is no mentioning of the name of PW1, but they are admitting that the kuri has been paid by PW1. No pass book is seen produced by PW1. It is submitted by the counsel for complainant and also stated in the argument note that it was produced before the Forum while the Forum was working in rented premises in Ayyanthole and it is now missing. Since there is no evidence to show the production of pass book we can not comment on this argument. The X1(a) produced by respondents would prove that towards the kuri stands in the name of Suresh.C.K. the complainant has remitted the amounts for the 21 instalments. So definitely PW1 is entitled to get this amount. The complainant, an autorickshaw driver cannot penalize for the default of former managing director of respondent’s company.
9. The complainant produced Exhibits P1 to P8 documents in support of his case in which marking of Exhibits P5 and P8 are opposed by respondents. According to them both are forged documents. But there is no evidence adduced to prove the forgery and no steps taken to prove the same. Exhibit P8 is a letter from Thriprayar kuries to PW1 for clearing the instalments remaining unpaid. Exhibit P5 is an application for security and there is also nothing to disbelieve the same. PW1 also produced Exhibit P6 issued by respondents and which is not objected by respondents. Actually the respondents admitted the payments made by PW1 but refused to return the money by stating default on the part of their former managing director Suresh. It is not legal and PW1 is entitled to get the amount remitted by him. According to respondents kuri amount auctioned can not be split and severally given to one person. But they permitted PW1 to make payments from his pocket. The respondents are very well aware that PW1 is making payments out of his pocket. So definitely he is entitled to get the amount remitted by him. For the foul play committed by Suresh they have to initiate legal action against Suresh and not against PW1.
10. The respondents produced Exhibit R4 the specimen of kuri No.TKJ21. As per this the total sala was Rs.3,37,500/-. It is the case of PW1 that he had auctioned the kuri on a low amount since he was in dire need for money for getting a job to his son. During examination it is the version of PW1 that he does not know who is the other ½ ticket holder. He deposed that it is incorrect that by joining with Suresh he has subscribed the kuri. But he is aware that Suresh was managing director of the company. It is the version of respondents that Suresh was expelled from the company for financial mismanagement. It is the version of PW1 that the arrangement of ½ ticket was made by kuri company. According to him the entire things were done by kuri company. It was the argument of the learned counsel for respondents that the ½ ticket system is totally unknown to kuri world. But from the evidence it is proved that in this case it is totally known to the kuri world only. So from the evidence of PW1 it is made clear that PW1 was made subscriber in the kuri only by payment of ½ ticket and the another half ticket was hold by the managing director of the kuri company himself. The poor subscriber is not aware of the unfair trade practice committed by the respondents. When PW1 demanded the amount the respondents refused the payment by lien over the amount in connection with the liabilities of their former managing director Suresh. Complainant is not the person to be penalized for the unfair activities of directors of the kuri company. So the complainant is entitled to get reasonable compensation from the respondents.
11. The complainant claims Rs.35,800/- with 18% interest from 25/12/04. As per Exhibit R4 the instalment was Rs.3,750/-. There is admission from RW1 that 21 instalment were paid by PW1. If that be so Rs.39,375/- will be the half amount. It can be seen from the evidence of PW1 that only half amount has been remitted towards the instalment by him. So he would be entitled to get Rs.39,375/-. But he seeks Rs.35,800/-. So he is entitled to get this amount.
12. In the result the complaint is allowed and the respondents are directed to return Rs.35,800/- (Rupees Thirty five thousand and eight hundred only) with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 25/12/04 till realization with costs Rs.750/- (Rupees Seven hundred and fifty only) within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Since 12% interest is awarded till realization no separate compensation is necessary.
Dictated to the Confdl. Asst., transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum this the 25th day of August 2011.
Sd/-
Padmini Sudheesh, President
Sd/-
Rajani.P.S., Member
Sd/- M.S.Sasidharan, Member Appendix
Complainant’s Exhibits
Ext. P1 Copy of lawyer notice
Ext. P2 Reply notice
Ext. P3 Postal receipt
Ext. P4 -do-
Ext. P5 Kuri surety application
Ext. P6 Application form kuri amount
Ext. P7 Copy of lr. dtd. 23/11/04
Ext. P8 Lr. dtd. 22/6/06
Complainant’s witness
PW1 - Narayanan
Respondents Exhibits
Ext. R1 Postal acknowledgement
Ext. R2 Copy of reply notice
Ext. R3 Postal receipt
Ext. R4 Kuri pass book
Respondents witness
RW1 – Sajitan
Ext.X1 Kuri Auction book
Ext. X1(a) Page 42 of X1
Ext.X1(b) Page 43 of X1
Ext. X2 Kuri register book
Id/-
President
