Date of filing : 13-07-2011
Date of order : 30-05-2012
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD
CC.172/2011
Dated this, the 30th day of May 2012
PRESENT
SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT
SMT.P.RAMADEVI : MEMBER
SMT. K.G.BEENA : MEMBER
K.V.Surendran, S/o.K.V.Kannan, } Complainant
Weavers Street, Nileshwar,
Po.Nileshwar
(Adv.N.P.Ravindran, Kanhangad)
1. The Secretary, } Opposite parties
Nileshwar Block Agricultural Improvement
Co-operative Society Ltd, No.S.345,
Near H.P. Gas Nileshwar, Po. Nileshwar.
2. P. Nalini, Collection Agent,
Nileshwar Block Agricultural Improvement
Co-operative Society Ltd, No.S.345,
Near H.P. Gas Nileshwar, Po. Nileshwar.
(Adv. N.Raj Mohanan, Hosdurg)
O R D E R
SMT.K.G.BEENA, MEMBER
This complaint is filed by Sri. K.V.Surendran alleging grave deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties after bidding the chitty by the complainant. Opposite party No.1 Secretary demanded blank signed stamp paper and blank signed cheque leaf of the complainant being the security for giving the bid amount in the above said scheme. Thus opposite party No.1 cheated the complainant and violated the terms and conditions of the scheme. Complainant sent registered lawyer notices to both opposite parties. Opposite party No.1 filed a false reply. Opposite party No.2 evaded the notice and same returned unserved.
2. According to opposite parties this dispute is raised by the Member of the society, against the society and its agent, hence it will come within Section 69(1) (b) of the CS Act. The dispute can only be resolved by the registrar. Complainant had given one signed blank stamp paper and was not ready to furnish the signed blank cheque leaf towards the security for the payment of the remaining instalments are incorrect. Moreover, the sureties offered by the complainant has got huge liabilities to the society.
3. Complainant filed proof affidavit in support of his case. Exts A1 to A4 marked. Complainant is cross-examined on affidavit. Ext.B1 marked. Complainant is examined as PW1. Witness of complainant is examined as PW2. Opposite party filed proof affidavit and cross-examined as DW1. Both sides heard and documents scrutinized.
4. Here the facts of the case is that complainant is a Proprietor of Hanveev Agency shop at Nileshwar. Opposite party No.1 is the Secretary and opposite party No.2 is the Collection Agent of Nileshwar Block Agricultural Improvement Co-operative Society Ltd. Complainant is a subscriber of group deposit and credit scheme of the society as per the persuation of opposite parties. Ext.A1 is his pass book. Complainant has paid the subscription amount of `3000/- on each month up to the 16th instalment. Since the complainant was urgently in need of money he bid the group deposit scheme on 5-6-2011 after complying all the formalities. But he was not ready to furnish post dated cheque covering the blank signed cheque leaf balance instalments payable to the society by the complainant being security for payment of the above said amount. As the complainant was not ready to comply the demand of the opposite party No.1, the bid amount was not given to him. The complainant was also not ready to provide any other surety in the place of A.R. Baby and Padmaja. The complainant was not prepared to pay the instalments thereafter. According to opposite parties they acted only in accordance with the law and as per the proceedings of the chitty. As a successful bidder complainant is entitled to get `88,000/- after furnishing adequate securities at the time of bidding the amount. Ext.A1 is the pass book of the complainant in the G.D.S. Scheme. Ext.A2 is the lawyer’s notice sent by the complainant to Opposite parties 1 & 2. Ext.A3 is the reply sent by opposite parties 1 & 2. The registered notice sent to opposite party No.2 returned unserved is Ext.A4. Opposite parties filed proof affidavit and cross-examined as DW1. Ext.B1 sub rules of the scheme is marked. Here the question raised for consideration are:
1. Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties?
2. If so what is the relief and costs?
6. PW1 deposed before the Forum that the monthly instalment of the scheme is `3,000/- and the total amount is `1,05,000/-. He bid the chitty for `91,000/- at that time he paid only 16 instalments he continues that he offered 2 sureties AR Babu & Padmaja. But according to opposite party No.1 A.R. Babu held dues at the time of suggesting him as surety and Padmaja is his wife. So they were not acceptable. The opposite party asked blank cheque from the complainant. He was not ready to issue post dated cheque coming the amount due to the society. Complainant was urgently in need of money so he had given blank stamp paper signed. DW1 deposed before the Forum that complainant had remitted 16 instalments and 2 instalments added in his pass book by way of bonus clause 13 of the terms and conditions says that the society can demand security to its satisfaction. But what is satisfactory security is no where explained. DW1 deposed before the Forum that Opposite party No.1 colleted instalment cheque leaf in advance from some subscribers. DW1 deposed before the Forum that cheque is a negotiable instrument and that cannot be demanded as a security for bank transactions. A.R. Babu and his wife are “A” class members and they executed the security documents before the Secretary for receiving the amount. At that time A.R. Babu was not bid his scheme amount. What is the liability of A.R. Babu is nowhere explained either in the affidavit or in version or reply notice.
7. Here the opposite parties admitted the bidding of chitty to the complainant and non acceptance of sureties AR Babu & Padmaja but what is the liability of AR Babu is no where explained. Moreover, at that time A.R.Babu has not bid his scheme amount in his cross-examination DW1 admitted that cheque is a negotiable instrument and it cannot be damaged as a security. It is deficiency of service on the part of opposite party No.1 to insist the complainant illegally to furnish blank cheque and stamp paper. Moreover A.R.Babu was not bid his scheme amount when he offered as security for the complainant.
8. Therefore we find there is no valid reason by the opposite party No.1 for not disbursing the bidded amount to the complainant after executing security documents by sureties. Hence we are of the opinion that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and thereby the complainant suffered mentally and monetarily.
Hence the complaint is allowed. Second Opposite party is exonerated from liabilities and the 1st opposite party is directed to refund `54,000/- with `10,000/- as compensation and `5,000/- as cost within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. Failing which `54,000/- will carry interest @ 12% from 5-6-2011 till payment.
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exts.
A1. Pass book of the complainant.
A2.& A3. Copy of lawyer notices.
A4.Returned registered lawyer notice.
B1. Sub clause.
PW1. K.V.Surendran.
PW2. A.R.Babu
DW1. Ajayan.E.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Pj/ Forwarded by Order
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
