KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONVAZHUTHACAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL 269/08 JUDGMENT DATED: 24.2.2010 PRESENT JISTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER 1.The Manager, : APPELLANTS Keala State Financial Enterprises Ltd., Kechery, Thrissur. 2. The Keala State Financial Enterprises Ltd., rep. by Chairman, Bhadratha, Museum Road, Thrissur. (By Adv.M.Sasindran & Bipin.M.V) vs. Rosy John, : RESPONDENT W/o Late C.A.Johnson, Chungath House(Thejus), P.O.,Velur, Thrissur. JUDGMENT JISTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties/KSFE in CC.945/2005 in the file of CDRF, Thrissur. The appellants are under orders to provide waiver facility as per the insurance scheme offered and also to pay Rs.1000/- as costs. 2. The case of the complainant is that her husband Mr.C.A.Johnson had joined the particular chitty and he prized the same. The chitty amount is Rs.1,00,000/-. Johnson died on 12.5.05. On 11.5.05 the respondent had declared a insurance benefit scheme with respect to the subscribers who had prized the chitty that the outstanding dues are not to be paid in case of death of the subscriber. An application filed in this regard was dismissed by the respondent. 3. It is the contention of the opposite parties that a scheme was introduced on 26.7..04 for the subscribers who would not have completed 60 years on the normal date of termination of the chitty. The date of birth of the deceased was 24.6.1948. He would have completed 60 years on the date of termination of the chitty. Subsequently as per the circular dated 31.3.05 the above scheme was cancelled and later a fresh scheme introduced on 11.5.05 as per which the age limit on the date of termination is raised to 65 years and there was a condition that subscriber should pay Rs.100/- for getting membership in to the scheme. It is the contention that the deceased had not remitted the amount and joined in the scheme before his death. Hence legal heirs are not entitled for the scheme benefit. 4. The evidence adduced consisted of Exts.P1 to P16 and R1 to R2. 5. We find that the subscriber died on 12.5.05 was not disputed . The second scheme introduced on 11.5.05. The subscriber died on 12.5.05. It is the contention of the counsel for the complainant that the intimation that the amount of Rs.100/- is to be remitted was received only after the date of death of the subscriber. As per the above intimation the amount of Rs.100/- is to be remitted on or before 30.6.05. It is also submitted that the above date has been extended further also. It is also submitted in the 1st scheme there was no condition to remit any amount for joining the scheme and all the prized subscribers were covered. We find that the intimation of the scheme itself is subsequent to the death of the deceased subscriber. The scheme is meant to provide benefit to the subscribers. It is not on account to any lapse on the part of the subscriber that he could not remit Rs.100/-. The amount of Rs.100/- has no co-relation with the benefits provided. In the circumstances we find that it is only just to provide the benefits of the scheme to the legal heirs of the deceased also. Hence we find that no interference is called for in the order of the Forum. The appeal is dismissed The office will forward the LCR to the Forum. JISTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER ps
FIRST APPEAL 2/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 24..2..2010 The appellant is the opposite party/Financer in OP.21/2004 in the file of CDRF, Malappuram. The appellants are under orders to pay a sum of Rs.8500/- towards compensation and Rs.1000/- as costs. The case of the complainant is that he had availed finance from the opposite parties for the purchase of a Swaraj Mazda Bus Chassis for earning his livelihood. He was made signature in a number of blank papers. The chassis was taken to Yamuna Body Works at Cherai near Manjeri. It is the case that after the body building was completed the opposite parties took possession of the vehicle and sold the same . He also already paid to the body builder Rs.1,15,000/- and Rs.15000/- towards the 1st installment to the opposite parties and he has to Rs. 35000/- balance to the body builder is alleged vehicle was repossessed by opposite party from the garage to the body builder. He has also been paid Rs.3,89,785/- The opposite parties has contended that the amount as per the appellants schedule was not paid. According to them vehicle was surrendered. The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PW1; Exts.A1 to A7. No evidence adduced by the appellant/opposite parties. We find that the forum below has considered the matter in detail. It was vehicle repossesses by the opposite parties/appellant from the garage where it was stationed for body building works. The Forum has particularly stressed the fact that the complainant could not use the vehicle even for a single day. Evidently appellant did not provide even breathing time to the complainant to remit the amounts to due. We find that the amount ordered to be paid as compensation is only Rs.8500/-. In the circumstance we find that there is no scope for admitting the appeal. It was also to be noted that the matter was once remanded by this Commission and disposed off by the Forum afresh.. In the result appeal is dismissed in limine. Office is directed to forward a copy of this judgment to the Forum urgently. IA.1009/2009 in A.487/09 ORDER DATED: 24.2.10 Delay sought to be 7 months and 28 days in the affidavit filed in support of the petition by the power of attorney holder of the petitioner. It is mentioned due to the inadvertent omission. The notice of posting of the EA was misplaced. The respondent/complainant is filed objection contending that denying genuineness of the case set up by the petitioner and contending that the petitioner is only attaining protract the matter. We find that the execution is with respect to the realisaiton of the amounts deposited in the petitioner/company. We find misplacing of the records is not a sufficient risk. The deposits are of the year 2000 we find that the petitioner does not establish sufficient reason to condone the delay. In the result IA is dismissed and consequently the appeal is also dismissed. APPEAL 269/08 JUDGMEN DATED: 24.2.2010 The appellants are the opposite parties/KSFE in CC.945/2005 in the file of CDRF, Thrissur. The appellants are under orders to provided waiver facility as per the insurance scheme and also to pay Rs.1000/- as costs. 2. The case of the complainant is that her husband Mr.C.A.Johnson had joined the particular chitty and he prized the same. The chitty amount is Rs.1,00,000/-. Johnson died on 12.5.05. On 11.5.05 the respondent had declared a insurance benefit scheme attracted the subscribers who had prized the chitty that outstanding dues are not to be paid in case of death. An application filed in this regard was dismissed by the respondent. It is the contention of the opposite parties that a scheme was introduced on 26.7..04 for the subscribers who would not have completed 60 years on the normal date of termination of the chitty. The date of birth of the deceased was 24.6.1948. He would have completed 60 years on the date of termination of the chitty subsequently as per the circular dated 31.3.05. The above scheme was cancelled and later a fresh scheme introduced on 11.5.05 as per which circular age limit on the date of termination is raised to 65 years there was a condition that subscriber should have paid Rs.100/- for getting membership in to the scheme. It is the contention that the deceased had not remitted the amount and join in the scheme before his death. Hence legal heirs are not entitled for the scheme benefit. The evidence adduced consisted of Exts.P1 to P16 and R1 to R2. We find that the subscriber died on 12.5.05. It was not disputed . In that scheme introduced on 11.5.05. The subscriber died on 12.5.05. It is the contention of the counsel for the complainant that the intimation that the amount of Rs.100/- is to be remitted was received only after the date of death of the subscriber. As per the above intimation the amount of Rs.100/- is to be remitted on or before 30.6.05. It is also submitted that the above date has been extended further also. It is also submitted for the 1st scheme there was no condition to remit any amount for joining the scheme and all the prized subscribers were covered. We find that the intimation of the scheme itself is subsequent to the death of the deceased subscriber. This scheme is meant to provide benefit to the subscribers. It is not on account to any lapse on the part of the subscriber that he could not remit Rs.100/-. The amount of Rs.100/- is no co-relation with the benefits provided. In the circumstance we find that it is only just to provide the benefits of the scheme to the legal heirs of the deceased also. Hence we find there is no interference call for in the order of the Forum. The appeal is dismissed FIRST APPEAL 2/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 24..2..2010 The appellant is the opposite party/Financer in OP.21/2004 in the file of CDRF, Malappuram. The appellants are under orders to pay a sum of Rs.8500/- towards compensation and Rs.1000/- as costs. The case of the complainant is that he had availed finance from the opposite parties for the purchase of a Swaraj Mazda Bus Chassis for earning his livelihood. He was made signature in a number of blank papers. The chassis was taken to Yamuna Body Works at Cherai near Manjeri. It is the case that after the body building was completed the opposite parties took possession of the vehicle and sold the same . He also already paid to the body builder Rs.1,15,000/- and Rs.15000/- towards the 1st installment to the opposite parties and he has to Rs. 35000/- balance to the body builder is alleged vehicle was repossessed by opposite party from the garage to the body builder. He has also been paid Rs.3,89,785/- The opposite parties has contended that the amount as per the appellants schedule was not paid. According to them vehicle was surrendered. The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PW1; Exts.A1 to A7. No evidence adduced by the appellant/opposite parties. We find that the forum below has considered the matter in detail. It was vehicle repossesses by the opposite parties/appellant from the garage where it was stationed for body building works. The Forum has particularly stressed the fact that the complainant could not use the vehicle even for a single day. Evidently appellant did not provide even breathing time to the complainant to remit the amounts to due. We find that the amount ordered to be paid as compensation is only Rs.8500/-. In the circumstance we find that there is no scope for admitting the appeal. It was also to be noted that the matter was once remanded by this Commission and disposed off by the Forum afresh.. In the result appeal is dismissed in limine. Office is directed to forward a copy of this judgment to the Forum urgently. IA.1011/2009 in A.488/09 ORDER DATED: 24.2.10 Appellant is the opposite party in CC.599/06 in the file of CDRF, Thrissur. Delay sought to be condoned for 2 years 8 months and 18 days in the affidavit filed in support of the application by the power of attorney holder of the appellant. It is mentioned that there are more than 100 cases against the petitioner and that the file of particular case happened to be misplaced. It is also mentioned that in the proceedings in the execution warrant has been issued against the Managing Director. So it is submitted that the petitioner did not receive the order of the Forum The respondent/complainant has filed an objection alleging that the petitioner is attaining to protract the matter and obstruct the recovery proceedings. It is pointed out that the petitioner is having offices at various parts of the country and has got men and material to conduct the case. We find that the matter in CC 599/06 with respect to return of the amounts deposited in the year 2000. We find misplacing of the files at the office of the petitioner is not sufficient ri sk for condoning the delay for more than 2 years. In the result IA is dismissed and subsequently the appeal is also dismissed ps | 
