By Sri. Chandran Alachery, Member:
The complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act for an order directing the Opposite party to pay Rs.75,000/- as compensation for the financial loss sustained to the Complainant and Rs.13,000/- for the mental agony and Rs.3,500/- as cost of the proceedings.
2. Complaint in brief:- The Complainant joined in to a chitty with Opposite Party and the Complainant on 08.07.2014 approached the Opposite party for receiving chitty amount and loan from Opposite party. The Complainant pledged house and property as security and remitted Rs.1,500/- as fees for valuation of property. But after 10 days, when there was no response from Opposite Party, the Complainant contacted and over phone on several occasions, there was no response. At last when the Complainant contacted the Manager, the Manager asked the
Complainant to meet the KSFE's legal adviser. So later 44 days, the complainant sought the details of transaction through KSFE helpline. Thereafter the Opposite Party took steps. During these period the Complainant sustained heavy loss due to deficiency of service from the part of Opposite Party. The Complainant lodged written complaints about this on26.08.2014 to the GM, KSFE, Thrissur, Chairman, KSFE, Thrissur and Asst. General Manager, Regional Office Kannur. On 13.10.2014, the Regional Office Kannur gave a reply to the Complainant pointing out the deficiency of service from the part of Opposite Party. The Complainant gave all documents as required by panel advocate to the Branch Manager in right time but due to the negligence of Branch Manager, it was not processed in time and thereby delay caused. It is nothing but deficiency of service from the part of Opposite party. Aggrieved by this the complaint is filed.
3. On receipt of complaint, notice was issued to Opposite Party and Opposite Party appeared before the Forum and filed version. In the version of Opposite party, the Opposite party contended that the Complainant on 08.07.2014, approached Opposite Party for getting chitty amount and loan. But Opposite party denied all other allegation of Complainant. Opposite party admitted that on 08.07.2014, the Complainant gave application for getting chity amount and loan with documents for legal scrutiny and opinion to the panel advocate. The panel advocate demanded back documents of property for scrutiny and the Opposite party over telephone informed this matter to the Complainant. On 13.08.2014, the Complainant approached the Opposite party and stated that the back documents are already produced in another transaction with the Opposite party. Then immediately the Opposite party traced it out from the other file and send it to the advocate. The panel advocate on 16.08.2014, filed legal report. On getting legal report, the Opposite Party send the file to Head Office for sanction. The head Office gave sanction on 30.08.2014 and took other steps. On 11.09.2014, the Opposite Party disbursed the amount to the Complainant. There is no deficiency or delay from the side of Opposite Party.
4. On perusal of complaint, version and documents the Forum raised the following points for considerations.
1. Whether there is deficiency of service from the part of Opposite Party?
2. Relief and cost.
5. Point No.1:- The Complainant filed proof affidavit and is examined as PW1 and document is marked as Ext.A1. The Opposite Party also filed proof affidavit and the Opposite party is examined as OPW1. Ext.A1 is the reply letter send to the Complainant by the Regional Office, KSFE, Kannur. In Ext.A1, it is stated that the Regional Office made an enquiry resending this issue and found that the Opposite party misplaced the back document which are submitted by the Complainant in time as per the direction of panel advocate. So there caused delay in getting legal opinion which resulted delay in disbursement of amount. The Ext.A1 letter also states that the Regional office is going to take action against the Branch Manager and asked explanation from the Manager. The specific case of Complainant is that there is delay and negligence from the part of Opposite party in taking steps to disburse the amount. Ext.A1 document support the contention of the Complainant apparently. The case of Opposite Party is that there is delay from the side of Complainant in producing back document which resulted delay in getting legal opinion. But as per Ext.A1, the documents are misplaced by the Opposite Party which resulted the delay. The Opposite Party not produced any document to show that the Opposite party had intimated the Complainant regarding the requirement of back documents in time as per the demand of panel advocate. The Opposite party not produced the phone details showing this aspect. There is no specific time is fixed for the submitting of legal report by the panel advocate. But here, the panel advocate could not submit report due to the non produce of the back document. If Opposite party proves that the Opposite Party had intimated the Complainant in time for the production of back document to the panel advocate, the responsibility can be shifted to the shoulders of the Complainant. But here the Opposite party failed to prove it. So by considering the Ext.A1 document and in evidences of both parties, the Forum is of the opinion that there is deficiency of service from the part of Opposite Party in dealing the matter which caused loss and suffering to the Complainant. Point No.1 is found accordingly.
6. Point No.2:- Since point No.1 is found against the Opposite Party, the Opposite party is liable to pay cost and compensation to the complainant.
In the result, the Complaint is partly allowed and the Opposite Party is directed to pay Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand ) only as compensation for the financial loss and mental suffering of the Complainant, and the Opposite Party is also directed to pay Rs.3,000/- (Three thousand) only as cost of the proceedings. The Opposite parties shall comply the order within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order failing which the Complainant is entitled to get 12% interest for the whole sum.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 25th day of August 2015.
Date of Filing:02.03.2015.
PRESIDENT :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
/True Copy/
PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.
APPENDIX.
Witness for the complainant:
PW1. Abdul Gafoor Complainant.
Witness for the Opposite Party:
OPW1. Rajeevan. M.P. Manager, K.S.F.E, Mananthavady Branch.
Exhibits for the complainant
A1. Letter. dt:13.10.2014.
Exhibits for the opposite Party.
Nil.
