D.O.F:22/09/2021
D.O.O:01/06/2023
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KASARAGOD
CC.159/2021
Dated this, the 01stday of June 2023
PRESENT:
SRI.KRISHNAN.K : PRESIDENT
SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M : MEMBER
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
Haritha.G, aged 28 years
W/o Sreejith,
K.K Puram Kunnil House,
Chengala – Post,
Chengala Grama Panchayat
Kasaragod Taluk, Kasaragod District- 671541 : Complainant
(Adv: T.C Narayanan)
And
Santhosh. M, aged 26 years
S/o Appayya,
Residing at “ GK Nagar”,
Soorambail, Edanad – Post,
Kasaragod Taluk, Kasaragod District- 671321 : Opposite Party
(Adv: Udayakumar.R)
ORDER
SMT.BEENA.K.G: MEMBER
The brief facts of this case is that the complainant is working as a beautician in Aishwarya Ladies Beauty Parlour Kasaragod. The Opposite Parties engaged in many commercial activities and is an employee of Bharath Finance Company. The complainant availed a loan of Rs.1,00,000/- from Opposite Party for 12% interest per annum without any security. The Opposite Party had given two mobile numbers to the Complainant for repayment of the loan, one Mr. Balyappa K.R and Rakshith who are officers of Bharath Finance Company. After disbursing the loan amount the Opposite Party started to visit the Complainant’s beauty Parlor continuously asking money. The Opposite Party compelled her to close the loan within December, and to pay Rs.2,50,000/- to close the loan. Thereafter the Opposite Party offered a loan of Rs.10,00,000/- from Axis bank for arranging the loan the Opposite Party demanded a sum of Rs.90,000/-. The Opposite Party Obtained Rs.70,000/- by cheque and Rs.20,000/- towards insurance premium. Even after receiving such a huge amount no loan was arranged so far. Therefore the Complainant filed this complaint direct the opposite party to refund the money he collected from the Complainant, along with a sum of Rs.1,33,650/- collected excessively towards interest in the previous loan, with interest at the rate of 10% per annum together with a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation.
The Opposite Party filed version and according to them, the complaint is devoid of any merit. The Opposite Party is not a necessary party in this case. The Opposite Party states that he has no connection with Axis Bank. one Mr. Naveen Belliyappa Gonikkoppa, Madikkeri was Sangha manager of Bharath Finance Company and Mr.Rakshith was collection agent of Bharath Finance Company Sullya Branch. The Opposite Party further states that the Complainant and Navin Belliyappa had financial transaction before Opposite Party joining in the Company. The Complainant had joined the above said Company and prior to the joining of the Opposite Party Navin and Rakshith had good relationship with the Complainant. The entire amount was transferred to Navin Belliyappa and Rakshith’s account and an amount of Rs.25,000,/- was transferred to APPOLOOSPITAL. The Complainant had filed a complaint before Vidyanagar police station against Opposite Party and the police had taken Rs.40,000/- from Opposite Party by threatening and an amount of Rs.30,000/- from the brother of the Opposite Party and an amount of Rs.10,000/- was transferred to one of the relative of the complainant through Google Pay from Opposite Party’s Brothers Mobile. Remaining 30,000/- was paid directly. The complainant’s Mobile call details will reveal the relationship between Naveen Belliyappa and the Complainant. The intension of the Complainant is to threat the Opposite Party and grab money. The Naveen Belliyappa and Rakshith are necessary party in this case. There is no deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Party and the Opposite Party is not liable to pay any amount claimed in the complaint. Therefore the complaint may be dismissed with compensatory cost.
The Complainant filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and was cross examined as PW1. Ext.A1 series (16 in number) marked. Even though Opposite Party not adduce any evidence, he produced two documents which are marked as Ext.B1 and B2.
Questions raised for consideration are -
1. Whether the complaint is maintainable? Whether the complainant is a Consumer?
2. Whether there is any deficiency of service/ unfair trade practice on the part of Opposite Party as alleged by the Complainant?
3. If so what is the relief?
In this case the Complainant already had financial transaction with Opposite Party and had bitter experience of continuously visiting her beauty parlor by Opposite party which caused difficulty to her. Moreover the complainant was constrained to pay an excess amount of Rs.1,33,650/- excessively from the Complainant. Thereafter again the complainant approached Opposite Party for a loan of Rs.10,00,000/- and the Opposite Party is collected Rs.90,000/- as commission. Even after paying the commission charge the loan amount was not availed to her so far etc. are the allegations of the complainant.
While considering the maintainability of this complaint the complainant does not come under the definition of Consumer as per the Consumer Protection Act 1986 amended in 2019. Sec 2(7) of Consumer protection Act 2019 define the term consumer as any person who buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised partly paid or partly promised or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose etc.. In A.V George Kutty Vs State of Kerala it has been held that the jurisdiction to decide whether applicant is a consumer could be decided by consumer Fora. Here the Opposite Party is an agent who arranges loan from private bank without any security. The commission given by the complainant cannot be treated as service charge or consideration as per the Act. More over the contract entered into between the complainant and opposite party is not a legal one. The Opposite Party is a person, not an institution there is no consideration between the complainant and Opposite Party legally. According to the version filed by Opposite Party. The Commission charge accepted by the Opposite Party from the Complainant Rs.90,000/- (Rupees Ninety Thousand only) is returned due to the interference of SHO Vidyanagar. The Complainant already approached Vidyanagar Police Station for redressal of her grievance and sought relief. But the Complainant is silent about this settlement from station throughout affidavit, and complaint. But in cross examination the Complainant agreed that out of Rs.90,000/- given to Opposite Party as Commission charge Rs.40,000/- is received due to the settlement held at Vidyanagar Police Station. Considering the facts and circumstance of the case, it appears that there is no valid consumer relationship between the parties. Therefore this complaint is not maintainable before this commission. Hence, it is dismissed with no order as to cost.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exhibits
A1- Series- Photocopies of payment details.
B1- RTI.
B2- Copy of the computer printout of OP’s employment details.
Witness Examined
Pw1- Haritha
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Forwarded by Order
Assistant Registrar
Ps/
