Date of filing : 30-08-2010
Date of order : 21-06-2011
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD
CC. 187/2010
Dated this, the 21st day of June 2011
PRESENT
SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT
SMT.P.RAMADEVI : MEMBER
SMT. K.G.BEENA : MEMBER
V.J.Thomas, S/o.Joseph,
R/at Valippalakkal House,
Chittarickal Village and Post, } Complainant
Hosdurg Taluk, Kasaragod District.
(Adv. Santhosh Thomas, Hosdurg)
1.The Manager, } Opposite parties
Kerala State Financial Enterprises Ltd,
Chittarickal Branch, Po.Chittarickal.
2. The Managing Director,
Kerala State Financial Enterprises Ltd,
Reg.Office, “Bhadratha”, PB.No.510,
Museum Road, Thrissur.680020.
(Adv. K.Kumaran Nair, Kasaragod)
O R D E R
SMT.P.RAMADEVI, MEMBER
The complaint is filed by Mr. V.J.Thomas alleging deficiency in service against opposite parties.
The facts of the complaint in brief are as follows:
That the complainant is a subscriber of the Chitty No.10/2009 conducted by the 1st opposite party . The complainant joined in the chitty on 29-09-2009. The sala of the chitty is `2,00,000/- and the monthly subscription is `2,000/-. On 13-1-2010 the chitty draw fell upon the complainant. The 1st opposite party informed the complainant that they would keep the amount due to him in fixed deposit and it is entered in the pass book issued to the complainant. Since the complainant urgently in need of money approached the 1st opposite party and enquired about the formalities to release the amount. Opposite party No.1 suggested providing employees as the guarantors or property bond for release of the amount. Then the complainant arranged two employees of KSRTC to stand as sureties for the release of the amount and produced them before Opposite party No.1. But the Manager told that KSRTC employees are not acceptable as sureties. Then the complainant arranged his father’s property to execute the bond. The complainant produced the required documents as demanded by opposite party No.1. But at last the complainant asked original of the basic document of his father. But the original of the document was irrecoverably lost. The complainant has produced the certified copy of the basic document. According to the complainant it is well settled that if an original document is lost the registration copy is well and sufficient to meet the needs. But the opposite party is not ready to accept the certified copy of the basic document. The complainant further submits that though as per the entries in the pass book the amount is kept in fixed deposit but it was an interestless deposit. At last on 20-07-2010 the complainant sent a letter to the opposite parties. Both parties received the notice and opposite party No.2 send a false reply. Hence the complaint is filed for necessary relief.
2. The opposite parties received notice issued by the Forum and entered in appearance and filed the version through their counsel. The averments in the written version in brief is that the opposite parties admitted the chitty subscribed by the complainant and the prizing of the chitty to the complainant. According to the opposite parties the K.S.R.T.C officials do not recover the defaulted amount from the salaries of the employees and therefore the company did not accept their bond and that the company has issued a circular to the effect. But these opposite parties denied that the complainant has produced any salary certificate of KSRTC employees before the opposite party No.1. The opposite parties further submits that the complainant wanted to execute a bond in respect of his father’s landed property as security but he failed to produce the back document. According to opposite parties the standing counsel of the company to whom the property documents were given for legal opinion opined that the property could not be accepted without the prior title deed in respect of the property. It is further submitted by the opposite parties that the request of the complainant to transfer his prized amount as the fixed deposit could not be entertained as the complainant has defaulted to pay instalments of the chitty subsequent to the prizing of the chitty. As per the chitty proceedings of the opposite party company the prized amount could not be transferred in to the account of the subscriber as FD when there is arrears of instalments. Therefore as per practice and procedure, the amount after deducting the defaulted instalments and service charges was converted at Chitty Security Deposit in Trust (C.S.D.T). The complainant was not prepared to pay the defaulted instalments directly. According to opposite parties they acted only in accordance with the law and as per the procedures of the chitty. It is further submits that the opposite parties are ready to release the prized amount lying in his account to him without delay if he furnish sufficient security and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
3. The evidence in this case consists of the evidence of PW1 the complainant and Exts A1 to A4 on the part of complainant and Ist opposite party is examined as DW1 and no document is produced.
4. After considering the facts of the case the following issues were raised for consideration.
1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
2. If so what is the relief and compensation?
Heard both sides and documents perused.
5. Here the opposite parties admitting the prizing of chitty to the complainant and also admitted that they are not accepting the employees of KSRTC as sureties. Here the opposite parties has not produced any document to show that they are not accepting KSRTC employees as sureties. According to opposite parties in their written version it is specifically stated that as the KSRTC officials do not recover the defaulted amount from the salaries of the employees, the company did not accept their bond and that the company has issued a circular to the effect.
6. From the above version it is clear that there was a discussion with complainant and opposite party No.1 regarding the acceptance of employees of KSRTC as sureties. That means that the complainant offered KSRTC employees as sureties and the same is rejected by the opposite party. Anyway it is the discretion of the company to accept or reject the category of employees as sureties but it must be properly communicated to its customers. Otherwise it will create much difficulties to the customers.
7. The other contention of opposite parties is that the complainant offered his father’s property for creating the bond but he failed to produce the requirement and necessary documents in respect of the property. According to opposite parties the complainant had not produced the back document of the property offered as security. The standing counsel of opposite parties company had given legal opinion that the property would not be accepted without the prior title deed inrespect of the property. But the opposite parties had not produced before the Forum the legal opinion given by the counsel in the case of complainant. While cross-examining DW1, he deposed that he has not seen the legal opinion submitted by the standing counsel regarding security offered by the complainant. He also deposed that he don’t know the name of the standing counsel of the company.
8. According to the complainant he had submitted all the documents required by the opposite parties. His application is rejected only because he submitted certified copy of the back documents. Since the opposite party is not ready to accept his application for executing the bond he had sent Ext.A2 notice to the opposite parties. Opposite party No.2 sent Ext.A3 reply stating the importance of production of back documents. Here the complainant produced Ext.A4 the certified copy of the back document. The date of receipt of certified copy of Ext.A4 is 3-7-2010. Ext.A3 is dated 30-07-2010. Hence it is presumed that the complainant might submitted the certified copy of the back document and the opposite parties rejected the same and thereafter the complainant sent Ext.A3 notice. Non production of the legal opinion given by the standing counsel for the opposite parties are also indicates the same. Usually if the original document is lost irrecoverably the certified copy of the lost document can be substituted. Here the original of the back document is lost the certified copy of the back document is enough to execute the bond.
9. Therefore we find there is no valid reason by the opposite parties to reject the application for executing the bond since the certified copy of the back document is produced by the complainant. Hence we are of the opinion that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and thereby the complainant suffered mentally and monetarily.
Hence the complaint is allowed and the opposite parties are directed to pay the chitty amount after deducting any amount as per rules and after accepting the security mentioned above and also directed to pay a compensation of `10,000/- and a cost of `2,000/- to the complainant. Time for compliance of the order is 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order.
MEMB ER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exts.
A1. Chitty Pass book of the complainant.
A2. 20-7-2010 letter sent by complainant to OP No.1.
A3. 30-07-2010 reply sent OP to complainant.
A4. Certified copy of the property(Back document)
PW1.V.J.Thomas
DW1.Jose Peter
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Pj/
