DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM  PALAKKAD

Dated this the 18^th Day  of April  2012

Present    : Smt.Seena H, President

               : Smt. Preetha.G. Nair, Member       

               : Smt. Bhanumathi.A.K, Member         Date of filing: 20/04/2010

                                                          (C.C.No.52/2010)  

Narendran,

S/o.Ramadasan,

Thachapully House,

245/21, Shanti Nagar,

P.O.Ayyanthole,

Thrissur District                                                      -        Complainant

(By Adv.P.B.Rajeev)

                                                                     V/s

1. The Manager,

     K.S.F.E. Ltd.,

    Shoranur Branch,

    Shoranur

(By Adv.C.Ramadas)                                      -        Opposite party

2. Raghunath.T

    S/o.Late Pushpakaran,.

    Thekkethil House,

    ‘Thejus’,

    Near Balabadradevi Temple,

    Manjakkad, Shoranur

(By Adv.K.Lakshmynarayanan)   

  O R D E R

          By  Smt.PREETHA G NAIR, MEMBER

The complainant and his daughter have a Fixed Deposit of Rs.1,00,000/- with South Malabar Gramin Bank. The receipt of the FD had been deposited with the opposite party as security to release an auctioned kuri conducted by them in respect of kuri No.1/2005/76. The kuri has been already terminated. Even before the termination of kuri the complainant approached the opposite party to release  the FD  receipt since they were in need of money, for which the opposite party was ready. The opposite party asked the complainant to make an application in respect of the same and he sent a request letter dated 26/8/09. The opposite party denied to return the FD receipt on excuse that  the receipt has been pledged as security for another kuri bearing No.2/2007-33 joined and auctioned  by Reghunath. The opposite party stated that the kuri has not terminated yet and the FD can be returned  only after the termination of the kuri. The complainant  and his daughter had pledged the receipt as a security for the kuri No.1/2005/76 only.

If at all any document is created in order to secure the kuri bearing No.2/2007-33 without knowledge and willingness of the complainant and his daughter. The opposite party has done the same in collusion with his son-in-law for ulterior motives and unlawful monetary gain. The act of opposite parties amounts to gross negligence and deficiency of service to the complainant. On 6/1/2010 the complainant sent a lawyer notice to the opposite party demanding the  return of the FD. The opposite party has sent a reply on 30/01/2010. Hence the complainant seeking an order directing the opposite parties to

1. Return the FD receipt in the name of the complainant and his daughter
2. Pay an amount of Rs.25,000/- as damages and compensation for the mental agony
3. Pay Rs.2,500/- as cost of the proceedings.

Opposite party filed version. Opposite party stated that complainant is not a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act. Admittedly the complainant is only a surety and not a subscriber. One Raghu who is none other than the son-in-law of complainant joined in the chitty conducted by the opposite party as a subscriber. At the time of withdrawing the chitty amount the opposite party directed to produce security for the future installment. Raghu has offered fixed deposit  in the name of the complainant. As per the rules and regulations of the company subscriber as well as mortgager has to sign some connected papers and forward the same to the company.  Accordingly they signed the papers and after opposite party issued cheque to Raghu.  It is not true that complainant has offered security only for 1/2005/76 alone. In fact complainant has offered security for another kuri as 5/03-37 (terminated) and 2/2007-33 also. The said chitty 2/2007/33 is not  terminated so far. The opposite party company is a Kerala State Govt.undertaking company. Being a Govt.establishment no necessity for the Manager for fabricating documents in collusion with nobody. Unless chitty amount is terminated the opposite party need not return back the fixed deposit which is kept as security. In fact complainant has filed this complaint only to harass his own son-in-law.  Therefore the opposite party prayed  that dismiss the complaint with cost.

2^nd opposite party stated that the complainant has offered security for 5/2003/37, 2/2007/33 and 1/2005/76. The chitty No.2/2007/33 is terminated on 16/2/11. The complainant and his daughter offered security with their knowledge and willingness. The 2^nd opposite party had paid the chitty amount in all three kuries. Also in 2/2007/33 the 2^nd opposite party has paid the chitty amount in all installments. The complainant and his daughter have not demanded the FD receipt to the 2^nd opposite party. Complainant’s daughter is the wife of 2^nd opposite party. The 2^nd opposite party had filed divorce case before the Family Court, Thrissur. So the complainant filed the complaint to harass the 2^nd opposite party. There was no deficiency in service on the part of 2^nd opposite party. Hence he prayed that dismiss the complaint with compensatory cost.

Both parties filed affidavit and documents. Ext.A1 to A4 marked on the side of the complainant. Ext.B1 to B5 marked on the side of the opposite party. Report of the handwriting expert marked as C1. Matter heard.

Issues to be considered are

1.    Whether the complainant is a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act ?

2.    Whether  there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties ?

3.    If so, what is the relief and cost ?

Issue No.1

Issue No.1 answered in favour of the complainant as per the order in IA.151/2011.

Issue No.2 & 3

We perused relevant documents on record. 2^nd opposite party is the husband of the complainant’s daughter  Niveena. Complainant and his daughter have a fixed deposit of Rs.1,00,000/-  with South Malabar Gramin Bank. According to the complainant the receipt of the FD had been deposited with 1^st opposite party as security to release an auctioned kuri conducted by the 1^st opposite party and joined by 2^nd opposite party in respect of kuri No.1/2005/76. But the opposite parties stated that the FD receipt deposited as a security to another two chitties No.5/2003/37 and 2/2007/33 also. The chitty No.2/2007/33 is not terminated at the time of filing the complaint. As per the endorsement in Ext.B3 shows the chitty No.2/07 not terminated. The date of termination of chitty No.2/07 is 16/2/2011. The complainant stated that the documents given to secure the kuri No.2/07 is done without the knowledge and willingness of him.  The complainant filed  application to call for  documents from 1^st opposite party. I.A.  allowed and 1^st opposite party produced the documents. Thereafter the complainant filed  application  145/11 to send the kuri bond of kuri No.2/2007/33 to the hand writing expert for  comparing the signature of the complainant. I.A. allowed. C1 is the report filed by the handwriting expert. In C1 the handwriting expert’s finding that

“Based on the technical characteristics and the idiosyncratic scriptural movements and the physiognomy constituted  by each  and every details of the disputed signatures and the specimens, as present in these documents, I have come to the definite finding that the disputed signatures fall perfectly and absolutely  within the natural variation limits of the common master pattern of the specimen signatures and that they do not exhibit any trait of forgery or imitation or disguise. As such, by every reason it is mandatory to hold that the disputed signatures in the document No.1 were also made by the author of the specimens Sri.Narendran.”

So the complainant has signed the bond and application. Also the daughter of the complainant  signed in the bond and application. There was no dispute regarding the signature of the daughter.

In the above discussions we are of the view that there is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties. The complainant miserably  failed to prove his case. A mere allegation is made stating that he has not executed any documents in order to secure the kuri No.2/2007/33 with the 1^st opposite party. Further allegation that the 1^st opposite party has executed the document in collusion with his son-in-law for ulterior motives and unlawful monetary gain. Ext.B4 & B5 shows that 2^nd opposite party filed petition before the Family Court. In C1, the disputed signature in the kuri bond and the specimen signature offered by the complainant is one and the same and hence hand writing expert’s opinion that there is no doubt regarding execution of the kuri bond.

We are of the view that complainant has made a false complaint before the Forum. Hence we dismiss the complaint with a compensatory cost of Rs.1,500/- (Rupees One thousand five hundred only) to each opposite parties.

Order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of order, failing which the amount shall carry 9% interest per annum from the date of order till realization.

        Pronounced in the open court on this the  18^th  day of April  2012

                                                                              Sd/-

Seena.H

President

                                                                                Sd/-

Preetha G Nair

Member

                                                                                Sd/-

Bhanumathi.A.K.

Member

                                                APPENDIX

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant

Ext.A1 –   Copy of lawyer notice dated 7/1/10 sent by complainant to opposite

               party.

Ext.A2 –   Reply to lawyer notice dated 30/1/10 by opposite party

Ext.A3  –    Postal receipt

Ext.A4 –     Postal acknowledgement card     

Exhibits marked on the side of the Opposite parties

Ext.B1 – Photocopy of chitty pass book of chitty No.5/03-37

Ext.B2 – Photocopy of chitty pass book of chitty No.1/05-76

Ext.B3 – Photocopy of chitty pass book of chitty No.2/07-33

Ext.B4 – Copy of Divorce case petition No.1523/09 filed before the Family

             Court, Thrissur

Ext.B5 – Copy of petition No.1524/09 filed before the Family Court, Thrissur

C1 – Handwriting expert report.

Cost Allowed

Rs.3,000/- allowed as compensatory cost.