KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL:893/2004 JUDGMENT DATED:08..03..2010 PRESENT JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT SHRI.M.K. ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER Kerala State Financial Enterprises Ltd., Repd. by Manager, : APPELLANT Kalpetta Branch. (By Adv:M/s Menon & Pai) Vs. T.M. Reghunathan, C/o Vivek Agencies, Kalpetta North.P.O, Wayanadu. : RESPONDENT (By Adv:Sri.Shyam Padman) JUDGMENT JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The appellant is the opposite party/KSFE in OP:102/2000 in the file of CDRF, Wayanadu. The appellant is under orders to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation and also to provide the other benefits and also to pay a sum of Rs.1000/- as cost. 2. The case of the complainant is that he was a subscriber of chitty No:7/99 with a sala of Rs.2.lakhs with 40 instalments of Rs.5000/- each. He had given a proxy to the appellants authorizing to bid the chitty with up to a deduction of Rs.60,000/- ie 30%. He was in direct need of money. Whenever he approached the opposite parties he was told that they could not bid successfully in favour of the complainant. In September 1999 he intimated the opposite party that he no longer required the amount and instructed to cancel the proxy. On 28/1/2000 when he went to enquire about the balance amount in his sugama account, one of the staff asked him to execute the cancellation of his proxy in writing, representing that it is only a formality. Subsequently on 31/1/2000 he received a letter informing him that he has prized the chitty as early as 16/11/1999 with a discount of Rs.60,000/-. According to him the appellant has misused the proxy to the disadvantage of the complainant. There is inordinate delay in intimating the prizing of the chitty. He sought for compensation of Rs.1.lakh with interest. 3. The opposite parties/appellants has denied the allegations. According to them the entire case is a fabricated one. It is alleged that the complainant came to know that the bidding of chitty on 16/12/99 was for a discount of only Rs.10,050/- whereas on 16/11//99 the discount amount was Rs.60,000/- ie 30% of the sala and hence he has raised the above contentions. 4. Evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PWs 1 and 2, OPWs1 and 2, Exts.A1 to A2(a), X1 to X3, B1 to B2 series. 5. We find that the relief portion of the order is rather ambiguous. On a perusal of the evidence adduced we find that the appellant appears to be in the habit of collecting blank signed printed forms which is irregular, and amounts to illegality. Shockingly the same has been produced by the opposite parties themselves. It is clear from the documents produced that the proxy is being executed in printed form whereas the proxy produced in the instant case is in writing. The explanation of the counsel for the appellant that it was on account of the non availability of the printed form cannot be believed. The complainant has asserted that he signed in a printed proxy form. Evidently there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. In the circumstances and taking into consideration the failure on the part of the complainant to execute cancellation of the proxy in writing in time we find that the order of the Forum is liable to be modified as follows:- 6. The amount of compensation ordered to be paid is reduced to Rs.25,000/-. The appellant is also directed to refund the remitted instalments which has to be calculated as including dividends with interest at 12% from the date of deposit. The order to pay Rs.1000/- as cost is sustained. The amounts are to be paid within 3 months from the date of receipt of this order failing which the complainant would be entitled for interest at 15% for the entire amount from today. The appeal is allowed in part as above. The office is directed to forward the LCR to the Forum urgently. JUSTICE K.R.UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT M.K. ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER VL. | 
