KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL  

     COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL  NO:827/2006

                                     JUDGMENT DATED 12.01.2010

 PRESENT

SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN                        :  JUDICIAL MEMBER

SRI.M.K. ABDULLA SONA                      : MEMBER

C. Janardhanan Nambiar,

S/o M. Kunhambu Nambiar,

Periya House, Munnad.P.O,                     : APPELLANT

Chengala (via) Kasaragod.

(By Adv:Sri.Tom Joseph)

                   Vs.

1.The General Manager,

  KSFE, Bhadratha, Thrissur.

                                                                   : RESPONDENTS

2.The Manager, KSFE,

  MG Road, Kasaragod.

 (By Adv: Sri.M.Sasindran)

                                      JUDGMENT

SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN:  JUDICIAL MEMBER

The above appeal is preferred from the order dated:12^th September 2006 passed by the CDRF, Kasaragod in CC:2/06.  The appellant was the complainant in the said consumer complaint No:2/06 and the respondents were the opposite parties.  The said complaint was filed alleging deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties in collecting Rs.250/- towards documentation charge and postal charge.  The Forum below dismissed the complaint by accepting the case of the opposite parties that Rs.250/- collected was in accordance with the circular No:143/02 dated:17..7..2002.  Hence the present appeal.

2. When this appeal was taken up for final hearing, there was no representation for the appellant/complainant.  We heard the learned counsel for the respondents/opposite parties.  He supported the impugned order dated:12..9..2006 passed by CDRF, Kasaragod in CC:2/06.  The respondents requested for dismissal of the present appeal.

3. A perusal of the impugned order and Exts.B1 circular No:143/02 would make it clear that the opposite parties have only collected Rs.250/- as documentation charge and postal charge in accordance with the provisions of the circular No:143/02 issued by KSFE.  The Forum below has also considered the admission  made by the complainant that Rs.150/- can be collected by way of documentation charge and postal charge.  It is to be noted that the claim is based on a mistake committed by the 1^st opposite party in issuing A4 letter stating that the documentation charge can only be .1%.  In fact, B1 circular would make it abundantly clear that the opposite parties can very well collect documentation charge at the rate of .2% of the sala amount.  If that be so, the chitty subscribed by the complainant for Rs.1,00,000/- would carry documentation charge of Rs.200/-  There is no dispute that the opposite parties can also collect Rs.50/- by way of postal expenses.  So, the Forum below has rightly held that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties in collecting Rs.250/- from the complainant by way of documentation charge and postal expenses.  The complaint was rightly dismissed by the Forum below.  We do not find any merit in the present appeal.  There is no ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Forum below.  The present appeal is liable to be dismissed.  Hence we do so.

In the result the appeal is dismissed.  The impugned order dated:12..9.2006 passed by CDRF, Kasaragod in  CC:2/06 is confirmed.  The parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.

M.V.VISWANATHAN   :  JUDICIAL MEMBER

VL.

M.K. ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER