Kerala

StateCommission

213/2003

K.S.F.E.Ltd Rep.by Managing Director - Complainant(s)

Versus

S.J.Tharsis - Opp.Party(s)

P.K.Venugopal

26 Jun 2008

ORDER


.
CDRC, Sisuvihar Lane, Sasthamangalam.P.O, Trivandrum-10
Appeal(A) No. 213/2003

K.S.F.E.Ltd Rep.by Managing Director
The Branch Manager
...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

S.J.Tharsis
...........Respondent(s)


BEFORE:
1. JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU 2. SMT.VALSALA SARNGADHARAN

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):
1. K.S.F.E.Ltd Rep.by Managing Director 2. The Branch Manager

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
1. S.J.Tharsis

For the Appellant :
1. P.K.Venugopal

For the Respondent :
1. R.Vidyadharan



ORDER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

 

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
 
APPEAL NO.213/03
JUDGMENT DATED.26.06.08
 
PRESENT:-
 
JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU                 : PRESIDENT
SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN            : MEMBER
1. The KeralaState Financial
Enterprises Ltd.,  represented by
its Managing Director,  Thrissur.                      : APPELLANTS
 
2. The Branch Manager,
    KeralaState Financial Enterprises Ltd.,
Neyyattinkara Branch,
Thiruvananthapuram.
(By Adv.P.K.Venugopal)
              Vs
 
S.J.Tharsis,
Bindhu Bhavan, Puthiyathura,                              : RESPONDENT
Puthiyathura P.O.(Via) Pulluvila.
 
JUDGMENT
 
JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT
 
         The appellants are the opposite parties in OP.No.255/2000 in the file of CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram. The appellant/KSFE, Neyyattinkara branch is under orders to pay a sum of Rs.35,000/- with interest at 14.5% from 13.4.92 till realization after deducting Rs.8400/- with future interest at 14.5% from 11.12.94 till  date of decree from the above amount  and also to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation and Rs.1000/- as costs.
            2. It is the case of the complainant that he was a subscriber of two chitties Nos.  16/91 and 24/91 of the opposite parties. He had priced the chitty No.24/91 on 13.4.92 for a sum of Rs.28,000/- and Chitty No.16/91 for a sum of Rs.7000/- on 15.1.93 and he made arrangements  to execute     bond for  releasing   of  the amounts. But the same was not allowed   as  he had stood surety   for  one Ajayakumar for a loan and the above Ajayakumar had defaulted.   Subsequently the dues of Ajayakumar were attached  from the salary of the complainant. According to him he has defaulted to remit  the final 7 instalments in chitty No.24/91  and the last 14 instalments in chitty No.16/91. Hence the amount of instalments in arrears would work out to Rs.2800/- in chitty 16/91 and Rs.7000/-  in chitty No.24/91. The price   amount of  both chitties is Rs.35,000/-. According to him the above amount was kept in fixed deposit.   The chitties were terminated on 11.12.94 and the transaction  with Ajayakumar was closed in December 1999. According to him the price  amounts of  the two chitties in fixed deposit work out to Rs.1,03,906.59 of chitty No.24/91 and Rs.22,298.28 of  chitty No.16/91. He has claimed a total amount of Rs.1,17,468.87  and Rs.10,000/- as compensation.
        3. On the other hand, the opposite parties/appellants had contended that the amounts could not be disbursed as the complainant did not claim  the amount. It is denied that the complainant had applied for depositing the amount in fixed deposit. According to them the amounts due for the future instalments has to be deducted from the price  amounts and the complainant would be entitled only for the balance. After so deducting the complainant would be entitled for Rs.4,200.45/ in chitty No.16/91 and Rs.20,963.80 in chitty No.24/91. The total amount due would be Rs.25,164/- after deducting  the  defaulted instalments.
         4. The evidence adduced consisted of Exts.P1 and P2; Exts.D1 to D4.
         5. We find there is no dispute with respect to the fact that the complainant had priced the  two chitties on the alleged dates. Evidently the opposite parties are entitled for the amount due towards the balance instalments.     It is pointed out that the amount due towards the balance instalments of the chitty No.16/91 ie for 14 instalments would be Rs.2788/- and for the chitty No.24/91 for the balance of the dues Rs.7036.20. Hence the total amount due to the opposite parties would be Rs.9,824/-. The appellant has  conceded  the above due.   The complainant can be granted the priced  amount less the amount due towards defaulted instalments. The same would work out to Rs.25,164/-. The complainant would be entitled to get only  the above amount. The complaint has been filed on 12.5.2000. As per the order of the Commission the appellant  has remitted Rs.25,164/-    before the Forum. We find that interest at 10% from the date of filing of the complaint is  reasonable. Hence the appellant would be liable to remit  the balance amount ie; interest at 10% from 12.5.2000 till 8.4.03 the date of deposit  of Rs.25,164/-  in the Forum.
           We find that the compensation of Rs.10,000/- awarded  is  excessive in the circumstances as the complainant is a defaulter. In the circumstances the amount of compensation is reduced to Rs.2000/-. The complainant will be entitled for costs as ordered by the Forum. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
 
 
             JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT
 
 
             SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER
 
 
 
 
R.AV



......................JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU
......................SMT.VALSALA SARNGADHARAN