KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL NO.707/2002 JUDGEMENT DATED.19.9.2007 PRESENT SHRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN -- JUDICIAL MEMBER SMT.VALSALA SARNGADHARAN -- MEMBER Kerala State Financial Enterprises Ltd., Registered Office, ‘Bhadratha’, Museum Road, Trichur. General Manager, Kerala State Financial Enterprises Ltd., Head office Trichur. Branch Manager, -- APPELLANTS Kerala State Financial Enterprises, Venjaramood Branch, Venjaramood. (By Adv.P.K.Venugopal & Others) Vs. S.Sathish kumar Thottathil Veedu, -- RESPONDENT Vamanapuram.P.O JUDGEMENT SHRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN,JUDICIAL MEMBER The above appeal is preferred from order dated. 28th August 2002 passed by the CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram in OP.No.400/99. The complainant in the said OP.No.400/99 was preferred by the respondent herein as complainant against the appellant as opposite parties claiming compensation of Rs.15000/- for the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in granting a loan of Rs.75000/-. The opposite parties denied the alleged claim of the deficiency in service and contended that the complainant is not a consumer coming within the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act and that the complainant failed to affix his signature on the agreement for availing the loan applied for. But the lower forum accepted the case of the complainant and thereby the opposite parties are directed to pay compensation of Rs.15000/- for the deficiency in service. The opposite parties are also made liable to pay Rs.1000/- towards cost. Hence the present appeal. 2. Before the lower forum Ext.P1 to P7 documents were marked on the side of the complainant and Ext.D1 to D10 were marked on the side of the opposite parties. No oral evidence was adduced from either side other than proof affidavit dtd.8.1.2001 filed by the complainant and the counter affidavit dtd.11.6.2002 filed y the 3rd opposite party. On an appreciation of the documentary evidence on record the lower forum passed the impugned order. 3. We heard the counsel for the appellants and respondent. The learned counsel for the appellants argued the case on the basis of the grounds urged in the memorandum of appeal. He also relied on D3 document to point out the case of the opposite parties that there was markable difference in the signatures affixed by the complainant in the agreement executed in favour of the first opposite party Kerala State Financial enterprises Ltd. It is further submitted that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and that the complainant did not sustain any loss or inconvenience on account of the action on the part of the opposite parties. It is further argued that the complainant cannot be treated as consumer coming under the purview of the Consumer Protection Act. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent/complainant supported the finding and conclusions of the lower forum and requested for dismissed of the present appeal. It is also argued that the complainant had executed other agreements by depositing title deeds of his property and that the complainant was a customer of the opposite parties. It is further argued that the opposite parties un-necessarily raised objections for not paying the loan amount which was already granted by the opposite parties. 4. The points that arise for consideration are:- 1. Is there occurred any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties as alleged by the complainant. 2. Is there any sustainable ground to interfere with the impugned order dated 28.8.02 passed by the CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram in OP.No.400/99. POINTS 1 & 2 5. We will refer the parties to this appeal according to their status before the lower forum in OP.400/99. 6. The fact that the complainant Mr. S. Sathishkumar was a customer of the opposite party, KSFE is not in dispute. It is an admitted fact that the complainant joined in the Chitty No.12/99 conducted by the third opposite party, the Branch Manager of KSFE, Venjaramoodu Branch and the complainant was granted a loan of Rs.150000/- on the security of the aforesaid Chitty No.12/97 and on collateral security. Thereafter the third opposite party agreed to grant another loan of Rs.150000/- to the complainant on subscribing another defaulted chitty No.9/98. There is no dispute that the complainant agreed to that offer and he paid Rs.35000/- as arrears of the defaulted amounts towards that Chitty No.9/98 and the Kuri was transferred in the name of the complainant. It is the case of the complainant that subsequently the third opposite party asserted that Rs.75000/- only will be granted as loan on the security of the aforesaid Kuri (chitty) No.9/98. The complainant has also executed the necessary documents including agreement for availing the aforesaid loan amount of Rs.75000/-. But subsequently, the third opposite party insisted the complainant to execute a fresh agreement on another stamp paper on the ground that there is difference in the signatures affixed by the complainant on the agreement. It is to be noted at this juncture that the complainant has specifically pleaded that he was ready to affix his thump impression in order to make his signature sure and certain. The said case of the complainant has not been disputed by the opposite parties. Even if there occurred any difference or variation in the signature affixed by the complainant, the same could have been clarified and ascertained by getting the thumb impression or finger prints of the complainant on the very same agreement. The un-necessary insistence or compulsion made by the third opposite party for executing another agreement on a fresh stamp paper cannot be appreciated. The aforesaid attitude adopted by the third opposite party would support the case of the complainant that the third opposite party insisted for a fresh agreement under the compulsion or at the insistence of some other person who is having enmity with the complainant. At any rate the third opposite party cannot be justified in demanding or insisting for the execution of fresh agreement. This method or procedure adopted by the third opposite party would tantamount to deficiency in service. The unauthorized and un-warranted attitude adopted by the third opposite party caused un-necessary hardship and inconvenience to the complainant. He could not get the loan amount of Rs.75000/- in time only because of the un-warranted and un-necessary action taken by the third opposite party. The lower forum has rightly held that the opposite party being a government owned financial institution is duty bound to behave in a just and proper manner with a friendly attitude to the customers. But in the present case the opposite parties behaved in a strange way and thereby caused much difficulties to the complainant in availing the loan amount of Rs.75000/-. 7. It is also the case of the complainant that he availed the earlier loan of Rs.150000/- and the subsequent loan of Rs.75000/- for the purpose of starting an industry. It is the case of the complainant that he availed a loan of Rs.35000/- from a person at an interest rate of Rs.16% per annum in order to become a subscriber to the default chitty No.9/98. There can be no doubt about the fact that the complainant suffered a lot due to the arbitrary and un-authorized action of the opposite parties. The lower forum is fully justified in holding that there occurred deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in granting the loan of Rs.75000/- to the complainant. 8. The case of the opposite parties that the complainant is not a consumer as defined in the Consumer Protection Act cannot be upheld. The transaction entered into between the complainant and the opposite parties would make it clear that the complainant has already availed the services of the opposite parties by joining the aforesaid chitties and making applications for getting loans on the security of the aforesaid chitties and also by mortgaging his property as collateral security. It is pertinent to note at this juncture that the opposite parties have also received some amount as advance interest on the loan amount of Rs.75000/-. Another aspect to be noted at this juncture is the execution of the loan agreement in favour of the opposite parties for availing the loan amount of Rs.75000/-. Considering all these aspects of the case it can very safely be held that the complainant is a consumer coming under the purview of the Consumer Protection Act. 9. The lower forum has awarded a compensation of Rs.15000/- to the complainant but no sufficient reason is given for fixing the compensation at Rs.15000/- . The complainant has also failed to prove the actual loss sustained by him on account of the failure to grant the loan of Rs.75000/-. It is to be noted that in fact the complainant deposited Rs.35000/- for getting the default chitty No. 9/98 transferred in his name and by making such a deposit, the said Kuri has already been transferred in the name of the complainant. So, by the aforesaid deposit of Rs.35000/- the complainant has not sustained any loss. There cannot be any doubt about the fact that the complainant has suffered inconvenience due to the failure on the part of the opposite parties in paying the loan amount of Rs.75,000/- to the complainant. It may be correct to say that the complainant could not start his business on account of the non availability of sufficient funds on some delay might have been caused in staring the aforesaid business. Considering all these aspects, we are of the view that the compensation of Rs.10000/- will be sufficient to meet the ends of justice. So, the compensation of Rs.15000/- is reduced to Rs.10000/-. The lower forum has granted future interest at the rate of 14.5% per annum. Considering the nature of the case the rate of interest ordered is to be treated on the higher side. The reasonable interest will be at the rate of 9% per annum. So, the future interest is reduced from 14.5% to 9% per annum. There is no doubt that the complainant is entitled for his costs. The amount of Rs.1000/- ordered by the lower forum towards costs can be treated as just and proper. The points are answered accordingly. In the result, the appeal is allowed partly. The impugned order passed by the lower forum is modified to the extent as indicated above ie. with respect to the quantum of compensation and rate of future interest. In all other respects the impugned order passed by the lower forum is confirmed. Thereby the appellants/opposite parties are directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation with future interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the order passed by the lower forum till realization with a cost of Rs.1000/-. As far as the present appeal is concerned, the parties are directed to suffer their respective costs. SHRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN -- JUDICIAL MEMBER SMT.VALSALA SARNGADHARAN -- MEMBER | 
