D.O.F:13/07/2020
D.O.O:28/10/2022
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION KASARAGOD
CC.No.75/2020
Dated this, the 28th day of October 2022
PRESENT:
SRI.KRISHNAN.K :PRESIDENT
SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M : MEMBER
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
Sidharthan.C.B
S/o.Krishnan, Chakkathara
Kadumeni P.O, Kadumeni
Vellarikundu Taluk
Chittarikkal Village, Kasaragod – Dist : Complainant
670511
(Adv: Johny Scaria)
And
1. Kunhali. B
S/o Ahammed Moosa
(Former Manager KSFE Chittarikkal Branch)
Now : Manager KSFE Kasaragod Town Branch)
2. The Manager : Opposite Parties
KSFE
Chittarikkal Branch
(Adv: K. Kumaran Nair & Sabari L.S)
ORDER
SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M : MEMBER
The complaint is filed on the ground of service deficiency on the part of the opposite party.
The facts of this case in brief is that the complainant is a subscriber of chitty No.25/2017 conducted by the opposite parties, which was started on 16-11-2017 and to be completed on 16.02.2021. Chitty Sala amount was Rs.2,00,000/- and the monthly subscription was Rs.5,000/- and he was paying the amount without default. He has auctioned the chitty on 16.03. 2018 for Rs.1,63,000/- But the opposite party No. 1 , instead of paying the entire amount to the complainant , credited only a part amount of Rs.1,09,894/- to his account in SBl Kadumeni Branch. The complainant is having some other chitties with the opposite party, and also Sugama account at their Chittarikkal Branch. The chitty subscription amount was taken by way of transfer from the Sugama account .The balance amount of about Rs.5,00,00/-out of Rs.1,63,000/- is still un paid to the complainant by the opposite party. That amount is not seen credited to any account of the complainant so far. The opposite party is not ready to explain that aspect clearly.
The complainant think that the opposite party No.1 misappropriated his amount causing loss to him and committed service deficiency, due to which he suffered mental agony and hardships.
Hence this complainant is filed for a direction to the opposite parties to pay Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation .
The opposite parties entered in appearance through their counsel, who filed written versions.
As per the version of the Opposite parties the complaint is false frivolous vexatious and not maintainable in law or on facts. The opposite party admitted that the complainant is a subscriber of No.25/2017 conducted by the opposite parties and that he has auctioned the chitty on 16.03. 2018 for Rs.1,63,000/- The complainant subscribed some other chitties and on auctioning the chitty No.25/2017, he offered the landed property in R. S. No.53 of Chittarikkal Village measuring 8 cents belonged to his wife Mrs.Marikkutty. On 09.11.2017 the complainant had received chitty amount in another chitty from the opposite party No. 2 mortgaging the very same property. At that time the market value of the property was estimated at 8 lakhs. There after the complainant had availed a chittly Ioan of Rs.3,00,000/- vide RCL No.713 from opposite party No.2 on 29.06.2017 mortgaging very same property., on the basis of earlier valuation of property. Subsequent to the auction in chitty No.25, the above property was valued again on 23 04 2018 and the market value of the property was fixed at Rs. 8,40,000/- So the said property could be accepted as a security against liability only up to Rs.4,20,000/- ie: up to half of the market value . The payment of the RCLNo .713 was pending in arrears and as on 24.05.2018 the liability was Rs.3,12,740 /- and that of chitty No.25/17 was Rs.1,70,000/- .Therefore total future liability of the complainant was Rs.4,82,740 /- ie: Rs 62,740/- above the maximum limit of the market value of the property offered as security. The complainant had no other property to offer as security. Therefore with the concurrence of the complainant and as agreed by him an amount of Rs.3,772/- was adjusted towards payment of instalment of the said chitty and an amount of Rs.44,510/- adjusted towards existing Ioan Iiability in RCL 713 from out of the chitty amount. Therefore total fulture liability of the complainant came to Rs. 4,20,00/-. This was done only to equalise the future liability of the complainant equallent to the maximum limit of the security offered by him and also to clear his pending liabilities. The said payments were readily entered in all registers and documents related to the aforesaid chitty and the allegations of the complainant that he was not convinced as to which account the amount was not entered in any account are not correct. There was no any misappropriation of amounts on the part of the opposite party No.1 and no sort of financial loss was caused to the complainant.
There is no service deficiency on the part of the Opposite parties and therefore the complaint is Iiable to be dismissed with costs.
The Complainant filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and documents Ext. A 1 to Ext. A 7 are marked. The Ext - A1 is the Pass Book of chitty No.25/2017, Ext - A2 is the Pass Book of RCL No.713/2017, Ext - A3 is the Pass Book of chitty No.4/2018, Ext - A4 is the Pass Book of Sugama Deposit No.814, Ext. A 5 is the Possession certificate issued by V. O. Chittarikkal., Ext. A 6 is the Basic Tax Receipt issued by V. O. Chittarikkal. Ext. A 7 is the copy of Regd.Settlement Deed No.1027/2017 of SRO Balal. The PW 1 is cross examined.
From the side of the Opposite parties , Mr. Kunhali opposite party No.1 filed proof affidavit in Iieu of chief examination and a document Ext. B1 is marked .Ext. B1 is the copy of Attendance register of the office of opposite party No. 2. for the month of May 2018.The DW 1 is not cross examined.
Based on the pleadings and evidence 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 all or any of the opposite parties?
2. If so, what is the relief?
For convenience, all these issues are considered together.
Here the specific case of the complainant is that he has auctioned the chitty No.25/2017 on 16.03. 2018 for Rs.1,63,000/- but the opposite party No. 1 , instead of paying the entire amount to the complainant , credited only a part amount of Rs.1,09,894/- to his account in SBl Kadumeni Branch. The balance amount of about Rs.5,00,00/- ,out of Rs.1,63,000/-, is still un paid to the complainant by the opposite party. That amount is not seen credited to any account of the complainant so far. The opposite party is not ready to explain that aspect clearly. The complainant think that the opposite party No.1 misappropriated his amount causing loss to him and committed service deficiency, due to which he suffered mental agony and hardships.
The Opposite Parties submit that the complainant has subscribed some other chitties also and on auctioning the chitty No.25/2017, he offered the landed property in R. S. No.53 of Chittarikkal Village measuring 8 cents belonged to his wife Mrs. Marikkutty. On 09.11.2017 the complainant had received chitty amount in another chitty from the opposite party No. 2 mortgaging the very same property. At that time the market value of the property was estimated at 8 lakhs. There after the complainant had availed a chittly Ioan of Rs .3,00,000/- vide RCL No.713 from opposite party No.2 on 29.06.2017 mortgaging very same property., on the basis of earlier valuation of property. Subsequent to the auction in chitty No.25, the above property was valued again on 23 04 2018 and the market value of the property was fixed at Rs. 8,40,000/- So the said property could be accepted as a security against liability only up to Rs.4,20,000/- ie: up to half of the market value . The payment of the RCLNo .713 was pending in arrears and as on 24.05.2018 the liability was Rs.3,12,740 /- and that of chitty No.25/17 was Rs.1,70,000/- .Therefore total future liability of the complainant was Rs.4,82,740 /- ie: Rs 62,740/- above the maximum limit of the market value of the property offered as security. The complainant had no other property to offer as security. Therefore with the concurrence of the complainant and as agreed by him an amount of Rs.3,772/- was adjusted towards payment of installment of the said chitty and an amount of Rs.44,510/- adjusted towards existing Ioan Iiability in RCL 713 from out of the chitty amount. Therefore total future liability of the complainant came to Rs. 4,20,000/-. This was done only to equalise the future liability of the complainant equallent to the maximum limit of the security offered by him and also to clear his pending liabilities. The said payments were readily entered in all registers and documents related to the aforesaid chitty and the allegations of the complainant that he was not convinced as to which account the amount was not entered in any account are not correct. There was no any misappropriation of amounts on the part of the opposite party and no sort of financial loss was caused to the complainant.
Here it is seen that the complainant has more than one chitties, which are auctioned. Also he had obtained chitty loan. The payment of the chitti subscription amount and the loan amount are by the way of transfer from the sugama deposit account. So every remittance is recorded properly. Even though the complainant argue that no amount is in due in his loan account the opposite party submit that the payment of the RCL No .713 was pending in arrears and as on 24.05.2018 the liability including interest and all was Rs.3,12,740 /- and that of chitty No.25/17 was Rs.1,70,000/-. The Ext.A2, the Pass Book of RCL No.713 shows that out of 48 instalments of Rs.8,230/- only14 instalments have been paid till 20.04.2018. That means altogether he paid an amount Rs.1,25,220/- in that account. This aspect has been admitted by the complainant during evidence. The PW1 ,the complainant during his cross examination would depose that I have availed the RCL 713 on 29.06.2017. “It is true to say that the loan is to be repaid with interest in 48 equal instalments.” “It is true to say that as on 01 05 2018, there were 38 monthly instalments (Rs.8320/-) in arrears.’
The opposite party submits that subsequent to the auction in chitty No.25, the property given as security was valued on 23 04 2018 and the market value of the property was fixed at Rs. 8,40,000/- So as per the existing rules, the said property could be accepted as a security against liability only up to Rs.4,20,000/- ie: up to half of the market value. This was done only to equalise the future liability of the complainant equallent to the maximum limit of the security offered by him and also to clear his pending liabilities. This aspect also has been admitted by the complainant during evidence. The PW1, the complainant during his cross examination would depose that “it is correct to state that if the future liability exceeds the value of the security, the liability may be equalised.”
It is also deposed that “I have not calculated the amount of interest coming towards the future liablity.” “It may be true to say that (as on 24.05.2018)there was an amount of Rs.3,12,740/- as future liability. The Complainant would argue that the value of the property given as is much higher than fixed. But the document Ext A7 the Registered Settlement Deed No.1027/2017 dated 23.05.2017 would show that the valuation of the property offered as security is much less than the above valuation.
Considering the facts and circumstances of this case this commission is of the view that the opposite party was dealing with the chitty of the complainant as per the existing rule and regulations and the complainant failed to prove any service deficiency on the part of the Opposite parties.
In the result the complaint is dismissed without costs.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exhibits
A1 to A4- Pass books of chitty
A5- Possession certificate.
A6- Receipt
A7- The copy of settlement deed
B1- Copy of attendance register
Witness examined
Pw1- Sidharthan.C.B
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Forwarded by Order
Assistant Registrar
Ps/
