D.O.F:27/12/2019
D.O.O:30/07/2021
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD
CC.No.260/2019
Dated this, the 30th day of July 2021
PRESENT:
SRI.KRISHNAN.K :PRESIDENT
SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M : MEMBER
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
Raju Mathai
Mailayakkal, Punnakunnu. P.O
Kasaragod – 671533 : Complainant
And
The Secretary
West Elery Grama Panchayath : Opposite Party
Bheemanadi – 671314
Kasaragod –
(Adv: M. Gangadharan Nair)
ORDER
SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M : MEMBER
The complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ( as
amended )
The facts of the case in brief is that the complainant was the tenant in occupation of a Shop room bearing Door No.WEP II/38 situate in the Shopping Complex Cum Bus stand of the Opposite Party. As per the conditions of auction published by the Opposite Party in 2003, the security deposit to be collected before auction was Rs.500/-. But the Opposite Party collected Rs.1,000/-and after the auction the Opposite Party made the complainant to remit 3 months rental in advance, While continuing the tenancy, an amount of Rs.19,000/- was collected from the complainant in the year 2004 and thereafter on 9-4-2005 an additional amount of Rs.10,000/- was also collected for which a receipt is also issued with a remark showing it as the security deposit for the shopping complex. The Opposite Party had returned an amount of Rs.34,000/- to the complainant on 03-09-2019.
The collecting of Rs.1000/- instead of Rs.500/-as security deposit for auction andRs.10,000/-as the security for the shopping complex , from the complainant illegally and against the Bylaw are examples of service deficiency on the part of the Opposite Party due to which the complainant suffered financial loss. Even though the Opposite Party later refunded the entire amount on 03-09-2019, they are liable to pay the interest for the unauthorizedly collected amount of Rs 19,500/- Hence the complaint.
The Opposite Parties entered appearance through their counsel, who filed written Version. As per the version of the Opposite Party the Complaint is untrue, false, frivolous and vexatious. The Opposite Party received Rs 500/- from the Complainant at the time of participating in the public auction. It is also admitted that another amount of Rs.500 /-was received from the complainant at the time of executing the contract for Ietting of the room on license. While conducting the public auction, the Opposite Party is bound to collect prescribed Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) from all participants. The EMD collected from all the unsuccessful bidders will be refund. The successful bidder is bound to deposit a security deposit at the rate of 5 % of contractual amount or a minimum of Rs.1,000/- The EMD of Successful bidders will be adjusted towards the security deposit. The security amount so collected is a performance guaranty refundable to the depositor on Successful termination of contract. No interest is payable for that. The Opposite Party is a local self government and as per bye law which was duly adopted by the Grama Panchayath ,as per its resolution No.8 dated 24.07.1996, the successful bidder has to deposit 3 months rent in advance and also any additional amount as decided by the Opposite Party . The complainant has acknowledged the terms of lease by executing the contracts every year without any objection. As per the contract, the deposit amount will not carry any interest. There is no Service deficiency on the part of the Opposite Party and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
The Complainant (PW1)filed a proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and documents Ext. A 1 to Ext. A 7 are marked .The Ext - A1 is an incomplete copy of Auction Terms dated Nil. Ext - A 2 is the Reply dated 4-12-2018 under Information Act. Ext A3 is the copy of Lawyer’s Notice dated 19-10-2019. The Ext A4 to A7 are the Receipts issued by the Opposite Party.
The Opposite Party also filed a proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and Documents Ext B1 and Ext.B2 marked. Ext. B1 is the Rent Bond Dated 01-04-2015 and the Ext B2 is the copy of the Bye Iaw for letting of buildings
Based on the pleadings and evidence of the rival parties in this case the following issues are framed for consideration.
1 . Whether there is any service deficiency on the part of all or any of the opposite
parties?
2 . If so, what is the relief?
For convenience, both these issues are considered together.
Here the specific case of the complainant is that the complainant was the tenant in occupation of a shop room bearing Door No.WEP II/38 situated in the Shopping Complex Cum Bus stand of the Opposite Party. As per the conditions of auction published by the Opposite Party in 2003, the security deposit to be collected before auction was Rs.500/-. But the Opposite Party collected Rs.1000/-and after the auction the Opposite Party made the complainant to remit 3 months rental in advance, While continuing the tenancy, an amount of Rs.19,000/- was collected from the complainant in the year 2004 and thereafter on 9-4-2005 an additional amount of Rs.10,000/- was also collected for which a receipt is also issued with a remark showing it as the security deposit for the shopping complex. The Opposite Party had returned an amount of Rs.34,500/- to the complainant on 03-09-2019.
The collecting of Rs 1000/- instead of Rs.500/-as security deposit for auction andRs.10,000/-as the security for the shopping complex , from the complainant illegally and against the Byelaw are example of service deficiency on the part of the Opposite Party due to which the complainant suffered financial loss. Even Though the Opposite Party later refunded the entire amount on 03-09-2019, they are liable to pay the interest for the unauthorizedly collected amount of Rs.19,500/-
As per the version of the Opposite Party, the Complaint is untrue, false, frivolous and vexatious .The Opposite Party received Rs 500/- from the Complainant at the time of participating in the public action .It is also admitted that another amount of Rs.500/- from the complainant at the time of executing the contract for Ietting of the room on licence. While conducting the public auction the Opposite Party is bound to collect prescribed Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) from all participants. The EMD collected from all the unsuccessful bidders will be refund. The successful bidder is bound to deposit a security deposit at the rate of 5 % of contractual amount or a minimum of Rs.1000/- The EMD of Successful bidders will be adjusted towards the security deposit. The security amount so collected is a & quot; performance guarantee refundable to the depositor on Successful termination of contract. No interest is payable for that. The Opposite Party is a local self government and as per bylaw which was duly adopted by the Grama Panchayath , as per its resolution No.8 dated 24.07.1996, the successful bidder has to deposit 3 months rent in advance and also any additional amount as decided by the Opposite Party .The complainant has acknowledged the terms of lease by executing the contracts every year without any objection. As per the contract, the deposit amount will not carry any interest. There is no Service deficiency on the part of the Opposite Party and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
Here the main case is regarding the collection of excess amount collected from the complainant by the Opposite Party, towards the security deposit. The complainant argue that as per the Auction Terms the security amount to be collected was only Rs.500/- but instead the Opposite Party collected Rs. 1000/-
The Opposite Party argue that they have only collected Rs.500/- from the complainant, at the time of participating the auction and the successful bidder was bound to deposit a security deposit at the rate of 5 % of contractual amount or a minimum of Rs.1000/- The EMD of successful bidders will be adjusted towards the security deposit. The security amount so collected is a performance guaranty refundable to the depositor on Successful termination of contract. No interest is payable for that. The Opposite Party is a local self government and as per bylaw which was duly adopted by the Grama Panchayath , as per its resolution No.8 dated 24.07.1996, the successful bidder has to deposit 3 months rent in advance and also any additional amount as decided by the Opposite Party .The complainant has acknowledged the terms of lease by executing the contracts every year without any objection. As per the contract, the deposit amount will not be refund with any interest.
It was argued that while continuing the tenancy, the Opposite Party has collected an amount of Rs.19,000/- in the year 2004 . Thereafter on 9-4-2005 also collected an additional amount of Rs.10,000/- for which a receipt is issued with a remark showing it as the security deposit for the shopping complex and these are all illegal . But all these were in accordance with the bye law and terms and conditions of the lease. Also it is admitted by the complainant during Cross - examination that the Opposite Party had returned an amount of Rs.34,503/- to him on 03-09-2019. There was no delay in processing the application for that matter.
The complainant could not prove his case as to any negligence or any service deficiency on the part of the Opposite Party in receiving the security deposit from him, at the time of the auction of the shop room.
It appears that the complainant has built up his case based only on his wishful thinking. Actually he has no clear idea about the matter. He has produced a document Ext.A1 which is a photocopy of a page of a hand written notice (dated : Nil) , which he say, Auction Terms ., which is incomplete and cannot be relied upon. He has no case that any amount received from him is not acknowledged or not returned. Admittedly, the entire amount received from him as security deposits has been returned at the event of termination of lease .The security deposit is normally a damage deposit. Since there is no provision for interest over the amount the complainant cannot claim from the Opposite Party.
Here it is come to light that the Opposite Party, being a Local Self Government body, has acted in accordance with its byelaw ,which was duly adopted by the Grama Panchayath ,as per its resolution No.8 dated 24.07.1996., the terms and conditions of the auction.
Therefore considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this commission is of the view that there is no negligence or deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party. Therefore the complainant is not entitled for any amount towards the interest or compensation from the Opposite Party.
In the result the complaint is dismissed without costs.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exhibits
A1. Incomplete copy of Auction terms
A2- The reply Dt: 04/12/2018 under information Act.
A3- Copy of lawyer notice
A4 to A7 – Receipts issued by the OP
B1- Rent bond
B2- Bye law for letting of buildings
Witness Examined
Pw1. Raju Mathai
Dw1. Vinod Kumar.M.P
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Forwarded by Order
Senior Superintendent
Ps/
