D.O.F:26/09/2014
D.O.O:25/01/2022
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD
CC.No.206/2014
Dated this, the 25th day of January 2022
PRESENT:
SRI.KRISHNAN.K :PRESIDENT
SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M : MEMBER
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
Anantharaja. V.R, aged about 50 years
S/o Ramakrishna Navada, : Complainant
R/at Navadravil (House), Vorkady, Kasaragod
(Adv: Shajid Kammadam)
And
Sree Gokulam Chit and Finance Co (Pvt) Ltd
Division Office, Sree Gokulam Towers, 1st Floor
Near Traffic Junction, Kottachery : Opposite Party
Kanhangad, Kasaragod
Rep: by its Manager
(Adv: Babuchandran.K)
ORDER
SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M : MEMBER
The facts of the case in brief is that the complainant subscribed a chit scheme on 25.09.2006, namely, chit group No. J2F / 1050 / J MM / 10 and J2 F / 1050 for the value of Rs. 2,00,000/- each being conducted , managed and supervised by Opposite Party as foreman, payable with Rs.10,000/- for a period of 20 months . On become a prized chit holder , the Opposite Party coercively obtained 10 blank signed cheque leaves of Union Bank of India and original title deed dated 29.11.1999 of the complainant without any sanction of law . The complainant has repaid the entire liability and demanded the return of documents, but the Opposite Party didn't return. There after the OP filed case CC No.85/2013 against the complainant, u/c 138 of NI Act before JFCM, Kasaragod, by misusing the cheque leaves. The complainant appeared and contested the case and it was ended in his acquittal. On 05.09.2014 the complainant again approached the Opposite Party demanding the documents but the Opposite Party refused to return the documents. Non- return of the documents obtained as security after the clearance of liability is service deficiency, due to which the complainant suffered mental agony and hardships.
Hence this complaint is filed for an order directing the Opposite Party to return the documents of title deed and to pay a compensation of Rs.50,000/- and costs.
The opposite parties entered in appearance through their counsel who filed written version. As per the version of the Opposite Party, the complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious and liable to be dismissed. The Opposite Party admit that the complainant subscribed two chits for the value of Rs. 2,00,000/-, each being conducted, managed by them. The further averments that on become a prized chit holder and the Opposite Party coercively obtained 10 blank signed cheque leaves of Union Bank of India and original title deed dated 29.11.1999 of the complainant and that the complainant has repaid the entire liability and demanded the return of documents, but the Opposite Party didn't return etc. are false denied here with. The complainant bid the first chit on 14.02. 2007 for an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- and bid second chit on 10.09 .2007 for an amount Rs. 1,53,000/-. The termination of the first chit was on 10.09.2008 and the second chit was on 25.04.2008. At the time of obtaining the chit amount the complainant executed a mortgage deed in favour of the Opposite Party, by depositing title deed. The opposite party is entitled to demand sufficient security from any prized subscriber for due payment of future subscription. The complainant committed default in paying the subscription. For the discharge of liability he issued a cheque and while presenting for collection the same was dishonoured. The Opposite Party filed case u/s 142 of NI Act which was ended in acquittal. The appeal filed by Opposite Party is pending disposal. Mere aquittal of the complainant does not absolve him from liability. Unless the complainant cleared the dues, he is not entitled to get back the title deeds. The complainant is liable to pay Rs.336739/- to the Opposite Party, as on 22-01-2015. There is no service deficiency on the part of the Opposite Party and there the complaint is Iiable to be dismissed.
The Complainant filed proof affidavit in Iieu of chief examination and marked documents as Ext. A 1 to Ext. A 3. He was cross examined as PW 1. After closing the evidence, the complainant filed I A No. 116/2021 to reopen the evidence and produced one more document which is marked as Ext. A4. The Ext - A1 is a copy of the Regd. Notice dated 18-04-2012, Ext A 2 is the copy of the Regd. Notice dated 09-04-2012 Ext. A3 is the copy of the Judgment in CC No 85/2013 , on the file of JFCM -II, Kasaragod. Ext. A4 is the copy of deposition of the complainant in CC No. 85/2013, on the file of JFCM -II, Kasaragod. From the side of Opposite Party its Asst. General Manager is examined as DW 1, and marked documents Ext. B1 to Ext.B5 . He was cross examined as DW 1. Ext. B1 is the Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds. Ext. B 2 is the Continuity Letter obtained when a further payment is to be released against the same collateral security. Ext. B 2 series are Ledger Extracts , Ext. B 3 is the copy of Encumbrance certificate dated 18-5 -2007, Ext. B4 is the copy of Encumbrance certificate dated 09 - 04 -2021, Ext. B5 is the copy of Memorandum Appeal filed in the Cr. Appeal No.991 / 2014 filed before High Court .
Based on the pleadings of the rival parties in this case the following issues are
framed for consideration.
1. Whether there is any service deficiency or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party?
2. If so, what is the relief?.
Here the case of the complainant is that he has repaid the entire liability related to the chit No. J2F / 1050 / J MM / 10 and J2 F / 1050 and demanded the return of documents, but the Opposite Party didn't return. There after the Opposite Party filed case CC No.85/2013 against the complainant, u/c 138 of NI Act before JFCM, Kasaragod , by misusing the cheque leaves. Which was ended in his acquittal. Non-return of the documents obtained as security after the clearance of liability is service deficiency, due to which the complainant suffered mental agony and hardships.
The Opposite Parties defence is that the complainant executed a mortgage deed in favour of the Opposite Party by depositing title deed, at the time of receiving the chit amount and the complainant committed default in paying the further subscriptions. For the discharge of liability he issued a cheque and since the cheque was dishonoured a case was filed case u/s 142 of NI Act, which ended in acquittal. The appeal filed by Opposite Party is pending disposal. Mere aquittal of the complainant does not absolve him from liability. Unless the complainant cleared the dues, he is not entitled to get back the title deeds. The complainant is liable to pay Rs. 3,36,739/- to the Opposite Party as on 22-01-2015. There is no service deficiency on the part of the Opposite Party and there the complaint is Iiable to be dismissed.
Here the main question is whether the complainant has cleared the liabilities and is there any service deficiency on the part of Opposite Party at that event. It is admitted by the complainant during evidence that he had bid the first chit on 14 .02. 2007 for an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- and bid second chit on 10.09 .2007 for an amount Rs. 1,53,000/- and accordingly received the amount from the Opposite Party. The complainant says that he had repaid all the dues, but he could not produce any receipts to that effect. His arguments mainly based on the Document Ext B3, the copy of the Judgment in cc No 85/2013 on the file of JFCM -II, Kasaragod , in which he was acquitted on the ground that there is no proof for the execution of the cheque as well as for the fact that the cheque was executed for a legally enforceable debt.
The Opposite Parties produced Ext. B5 is the copy of the Cr. Appeal Petition No.991 / 2014 filed before High Court and states that the case is still pending disposal. By producing the Ext.B 2 Series, the Ledger extracts of the accounts, the Opposite Party submits that there is an amount of Rs.3,36,739/- is due to be cleared by the complainant as on 22.01.2015.
As per the documents Ext. B1 and B2 the Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds.
and the Continuity Letter obtained when a further payment is to be released against the same collateral security, show that the documents are obtained by the Opposite Party as security for the future dues. The complainant argue that the liability is now time barred and therefore he is not Iiable to repay the amount.
The Opposite Parties counsel submitted during hearing that the complainant had created registered documents over the property covered by the title deed (sale deed No.3497/1999) , which is deposited before Opposite Party , during pendency of this case.
The Opposite Party produced the document Ext. B4, which is the copy of Encumbrance certificate dated 09 -04 -2021 to show that aspect. The Ext. B4 wouId show that the complainant executed Regd. Settlement Deed No.115/2017 in favour of his wife Saraswathi and there after his wife Saraswathi executed Regd. Settlement Deed No. 2317/2017 in his favour. So the complainant is having a new "original title deed” for his property now. That fact is not disputed or denied by the complainant.
Considering the facts and circumstance of the case this commission is of the view that there is no evidence for any deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party. In the absence of any documents such as receipts etc. it cannot be held that the complainant had cleared the entire dues.
Since there is no evidence of service deficiency on the part of the Opposite Party, the complainant is not entitled for the reliefs prayed for in this case.
In the result the complaint is dismissed without costs.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exhibits
A1& A2- Registered notice
A3- Judgement copy
A4- Deposition
B1- Memorandum
B2- Ledger extract
B3- Encumbrance certificate
B4- Memorandum of appeal filed in the Cr. Appeal No.991/2014 filed before High Court
Witness Examined
Pw1- Anantharaja.V.R
Dw1- Shijina.K.R
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Forwarded by Order
Senior Superintendent
Ps/
