PBEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.
Dated this the 31st day of March 2012
Filed on : 18/08/2011
Present :
Shri. A Rajesh, President.
Shri. Paul Gomez, Member. Member.
Smt. C.K. Lekhamma, Member
C.C. No. 454/2011
Between
Sudhadevi T., : Complainant
W/o. K.P.S. Kurup, (By Adv. Anil Kumar P.V.
Pavakulam house Pallissery road, Guru Law Associates, Opp.
Palarivattom P.O., Cocin-25. EMC, Palalrivattom,
. Ernakulam, Kochi-25)
And
1. The Managing Director, : Opposite parties
Kerala State Financial Enterprises, (absent)
Thrissur-20.
2. The Assistant General Manager,
Kerala State financial Enterprises,
Kacheripady, Ernakulam -682 018.
3. The Branch Manager,
Kerala State Financial Enterprises,
Kaloor P.O.,
Ernakulam-682 017.
O R D E R
C.K. Lekhamma, Member.
The case of the complainant is as follows:
The complainant had joined a chitty bearing No. 26/2008 with the 3rd opposite party’s branch having face value of Rs. 10,000/-. The 1st and 2nd opposite parties have supervisory and administrative power over the 3rd opposite parties. The complainant is regularly remitting the monthly chitty amount of Rs. 25,000/- per month. The complainant had already remitted 30 instalments out of total 40 instalments. The complainant decided to purchase an immovable property. For that the complainant had auctioned the chitty on 21-03-2011 for Rs. 9,30,000/-. All the documents relating to the immovable property worth Rs. 36,00,000/- belonged to the complainant and her husband were produced to the opposite parties for the purpose of equitable mortgage. The opposite party appointed a valuator and also took a legal opinion concerning to the immovable property for its valuation and clearance. The valuator from the opposite parties valued the immovable property of the complainant at Rs. 25,00,000/-. The legal opinion submitted by Adv. Sunu P. John, Balamurali Associates in favour to the complainant. The complainant’s husband has already furnished the above immovable property as security in the opposite parties firm for the chitty No. 17/10 for an amount of Rs. 7,00,000/-. The opposite party informed that they declined to accept the said property’s documents as security for chitty. Then the complainant sent a lawyer’s notice dated 06-04-2011 asking them to accept the documents of the complainant as security. On reply the opposite party refused to accept the same. Due to the improper service from the opposite party the complainant had incurred heavy monitory loss of Rs. 9.5 lakhs and mental agony since the complainant could not purchased the property. Hence this complaint.
2. The complainant appeared, through counsel. Initially the opposite parties appeared thereafter, they abstained from the proceedings. The complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts. A1 to A7 were marked. We have heard the counsel for the complainant.
3. The only point is to be decided is whether the complainant is entitled to get compensation from the opposite party for mental agony or not?
4. The case of the complainant is that she auctioned the chitty on 02/03/2001 for Rs. 9,30,000/-. The complainant had submitted all the relevant documents relating to her immovable property to the3rd opposite party’s branch for disbursing the said amount. But opposite party refused to accept those documents as security and disburse the chitty amount to the complainant. The complainant is relying on Exts. A4 and A5 legal opinions with regard to the complainant’s immovable property. It is evident that those legal opinion are obtained by different banks other than the opposite parties. Therefore we are not relying on Ext. A4 and A5 legal opinions. Ext. A7 is the copy of letter issued by the 3rd opposite party to the complainant. As per Ext. A7 the 3rd opposite party informed the 2nd opposite party not to disburse the chitty amount without producing original of prior documents (settlement deed executed by the mother of the mortgager) with regard to 3.25 ares of property in Sy No. 648/11 B2 of Mullakkad Village. As such we could not find any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party since it is the sole discretion of the opposite parties to accept security and disburse the chitty amount. The only relief that sought for by the complainant is to pay compensation for the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The complainant did not seek any relief against the opposite parties to disburse the chitty amount. We make it clear that the complainant is at liberty to approach the opposite parties to get the chitty amount disbursed as per norms.
5. In view of the above observation the proceedings in this complaint stands closed.
Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 31st day of March 2012.
Sd/-
C.K. Lekhamma, Member.
Sd/-
A Rajesh, President.
Sd/-
Paul Gomez, Member.
Forwarded/By order,
Senior Superintendent.
Appendix
Complainant’s exhibits :
Ext. A1 : Copy of chitty pass book
A2 : Copy of notice dt. 06-04-2011
A3 : Copy of letter dt. 19-04-2011
A4 : Copy of letter dt. 02-01-2009
A5 : Copy of legal opinion
dt. 07-01-2005.
A6 : Copy of 3 member committee
valuation report
A7 : Copy of letter dt. 02-04-2011
Opposite party’s Exhibits : : Nil
Depositions:
PW1 : T. Sudhadevi
