Case of the petitioner's is as follows:

5^th opposite party availed financial assistance from the first opposite party for

-2-

running a lime industries, as self employment, for the purpose of earning his livelihood during the year 2003. The first and second petitioner stood as sureties for the said loan transaction. According to the petitioner 5^th opposite party remitted periodical instalmenst regularly. Industy of the 5^th opposite party faced financil crisis, due to the circumstances which occurred beyond the control of the 5^th opposite party, 5^th opposite party failed to remit the instalment and thereby the loan amount became due and there after he left the place without informing the petitioner. Consequently the first opposite party Kerala Khadi and Grama Village Industries initiated coerceive steps against petitioner for realisation of the dues through the opposite parties number 2 and 4. According to the petitioners coerceive steps against the petitioner were taken by Ist opposite party without accounting all the remittance made by the 5^th opposite party in the loan account. Further more coerceive steps were taken without taking any effective measures for realisation of the amount from the 5^th opposite party who is the principal debtor. So the opposite party states that act of the first opposite party amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. So, he prayed for furnishing proper accounts in loan transaction and to direct the opposite party 1 to 4 not to proceed with coerceive steps against the petitioner's and cost of the proceedings.

First opposite party entered appearance and filed version contenting that petition is not maintainable. According to them financial assistance availed by a job seeker from the board cannot be termed as a consumer dispute under Consumper Protection Act. Further they contented that as per the agreement executed between the board and the 5^th opposite party it is mandatory that if the 5^th opposite party, the principle debter, fails to

-3-

repay the loan sureties are liable for the debt of the principle debtor. First opposite party contented that R.R proceedings are initiated legally on the basis of the proper calculation made by the first opposite party. So, they pray for dismissal of the petition with their costs.

2^nd to 4^th opposite party entered appearance and filed version contenting that petition is not maintainable. According to them since R.R proceedings are initiated Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. According to them there is no cause of action against 2^nd to 4^th opposite party R.R proceedings are initiated legally. So, they pray for dismissal of the petition.

5^th opposite party has not entered appearance and was set ex-parte.

Points for determinations are:

i) Whether the petition is maintainable or not?

ii) Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?

Iii) Reliefs and costs.

Evidence in this case consists affidavit filed by both parties.

Point No. 1

Admittedly R.R proceedings are initiated against the petitioner. Hon'ble Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Appeal No. 840/98 stated that when the demad has become the basis for R.R proceedings no relief can be granted without holding that the R.R proceedings is not sustainable under law. The jurisdiction to question R.R proceedings vests with Civil Court that too only on limited ground. We are of the opinion that such is the position a contention with respect to proceedings to be

-4-

taken by the proper authority under the R.R Act cannot be treated as a Consumer dispute and the Fora has no jurisdiction. Further more, we are of the opinion that liability of the petitioner arise from an agreement in the capacity of surety cannot be termed as a consumer dispute as envisage under Section 2 (e) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. So, we find that the petition is not maintainable. Point No. 1 is found accordingly.

Point No. 2 & 3

In view of finding in point No. 1 petition is dismissed as not maintainable. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case no cost and compensation is allowed.

Dictated by me transcribed by the Confidential Assistant corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 30^th day of January, 2009.