THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOZHIKODE.

C.C.398/2008

Dated this the 10^th day of August,   2015

          ( Present:  Smt. Rose Jose, B.Sc, LLB.                          :  President)              

                                                                      Smt.Beena Joseph, M.A                                 : Member

                                                                              Sri. Joseph Mathew, MA, LLB              : Member

ORDER

By Beena Joseph, Member:

            The petition was filed on 05.11.2008.  The case of the complainant is that  complainant had obtained a computer loan through Opposite party No1 from opposite party-3 which  convened by second opposite party.  Opposite party No.3  sanctioned the loan, loan amount was withdrawn by first opposite party from the third opposite party bank without supplying the computer.  Hence this complaint for realizing compensation from the opposite parties for their illegal trade practice.

            Notice issued to both parties, both of them appeared. First opposite party filed version stating that all the allegations are false and fabricated by her husband.  First opposite party  further states that they had delivered a computer on 17.03.2007 as per  Bill No.00810.  Hence the first opposite party has no liability towards the allegation of the complainant.  First opposite party has stated that he has no relation with third opposite party bank.  He had denied the allegation of excess rate charged by him.  Hence he has no liability to compensate the complainant and there was no illegal trade practice on the part of first opposite party.  Second opposite party has not filed any version.  Third opposite party filed version  and denied all the allegation in the complaint.  And submitted that they sanctioned a loan to the complainant  on the guarantee of two other members by taking share of Rs.1250/-.  After scrutinizing  the application  third opposite party sanctioned a loan of Rs.25,000/- which transferred  to her account.  Later complainant issued a cheque in favour of first opposite party and first opposite party collected the amount from the bank. At the time of availing loan opposite party admitted to remit the loan as daily collection basis.  But there w as no payment on the side of the complainant, hence they initiated arbitration proceedings against  complainant.  The third opposite party denied the reception of Rs.4000/- as service charge and blank signed cheques from the complainant.  Hence  they demands for a dismissal of complaint.

Points to be considered.

1. Is there any illegal trade practice on the part of opposite parties?

2. If so what are the awards to be passed.

        In the above matter complainant was examined as PW1 and Ext.A1 to A15 were marked on the side of the complainant.  The first opposite party and second opposite party remained absent for several postings and first opposite party’s vakkalath was relinquished by the concerned counsel and memo filed to that effect.  Third opposite party cross examined  the PW1 but nothing was brought out against the complainant.

               In the above matter, it is admitted that complainant had applied for a loan from the third opposite party and which was sanctioned by them, and the sanctioned loan amount was transferred to the account of the complainant and the same was withdrawn by first opposite party .  Only question which remained to answer is whether the first opposite party had supplied the computer to the complainant.

               On going through the records it is seen that complainant is the member of third opposite party bank.  The exhibits produced by the complainant shows that she had obtained loan from the third opposite party  bank and first opposite party withdrawn Rs.25,000/- from the bank on 16.03.2007 as per Ext.A3.  As per Ext. A8 complainant raised the allegation that the first opposite party has not supplied computer even after the reception of the amount from the third opposite party Bank.  The above notice was issued on 29.03.2007 itself to the first opposite party.  And the same was received by the first opposite party but there was no reply from the first opposite party.  Later complainant filed petition before this Forum and alleging the illegal trade practice on the part of first opposite party.  First opposite party remained absent and hence set exparte.  And there was no contra evidence to disbelieve the case of the complainant.  In the circumstances complainant establish her case before this Forum.  So the petition is allowed .

               In the result  we are of the opinion that first opposite party is directed to pay Rs.25,000/-(Rupees twenty five thousand only) as the cost of computer, and to pay Rs.5,000/-(Rupees five thousand only)  as compensation towards the  illegal trade practice adopted by first opposite party and Rs.2000/-(Rupees Two thousand only) as cost.  Comply the order within one month from the date of order.

   This the 10^th day of  August, 2015.

   Date of filing:05.11.2008.

    

   SD/-PRESIDENT               SD/-MEMBER                           SD/-MEMBER

    

   APPENDIX

    

   Documents exhibited for the complainant:

   A1. Copy of Share Receipt issued by the opposite party

   A2. Copy of Savings Bank pass book issued by the opposite party

   A3. Copy of bank statement

   A4. Copy of Particulars of bank transaction issued by the opposite party

   A5. Copy of Particulars of bank transaction issued by the opposite party

   A6. Copy of Samrudhi  Loan pass book issued by the opposite party

   A7. Copy of Bank pass book issued by the opposite party

   A8. Complaint sent to the opposite party

   A9. Copy of Acknowledgement card

   A10. Copy of telegram sent to the opposite party

   A11. Copy of receipt for telegram (2 in No.)

   A12. Copy of letter for paper publication

   A13. Copy of Lawyer notice received from the opposite party

   A14. Copy of Reply to lawyer notice

   A15. Copy of Acknowledgement card

    

   Documents exhibited for the opposite party:

   Nil

    

   Witness examined for the complainant:

   PW1. Usha Muralikumar  (Complainant)

    

   Witness examined for the opposite party:

   None

                                                                                                               Sd/-President

   //True copy//

   (Forwarded/By Order)

    

    

   SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT