Date of filing : 21-07-2011
Date of order ; 16-08-2012
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD
CC.180/2011
Dated this, the 16th day of August 2012
PRESENT
SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT
SMT.P.RAMADEVI : MEMBER
SMT. K.G.BEENA : MEMBER
K.Reghuram Shenoy, } Complainant
S/o. Late.K.narayana Shenoy,
R/at Near Devan Road,
Kanhangad, Hosdurg Vilalge.
(Adv.K.Rajeevan, Hosdurg)
The Secretary, Hosdurg Taluk Consumer’s } Opposite party
Co-op. Societies Ltd, No.451, Kanhangad.Po.
(Adv.P.Narayanan, Hosdurg)
O R D E R
SMT.K.G.BEENA, MEMBER
This complaint is filed by Sri. K.Reghuvaram Shenoy alleging grave deficiency in service on the part of opposite party after bidding the chitty by the complainant. Opposite party refused to furnish the amount in time. Thus opposite party cheated the complainant and violated the terms and conditions of the scheme. Complainant sent a registered lawyer notice to opposite party. But opposite party sent a false reply. Hence the complaint for necessary redressal.
2. According to opposite party complainant is not a consumer and will not come under the purview of the Consumer Protection Act. As per the Byelaw of the society the bidder has to produce sufficient sureties and necessary bond for the amount to be received from the society. As per the bye-law if the bidder fails to execute necessary bond with sureties within the prescribed time the bidding amount will be kept in suspense account of the society and if the bidder fails to pay the subscription amount the same will be deducted from the deposited amount in the suspense amount of the society. Moreover opposite party conducted an enquiry and it is found that the complainant is a constant defaulter.
3. Complainant filed proof affidavit in support of his case. Exts. A1 to A3 marked. Complainant is examined as PW1. Opposite party filed proof affidavit and cross-examined as DW1. Both sides heard and documents perused.
4. Here the facts of the case is that complainant was a subscriber to the chitty conducted by opposite party. He has been paying a monthly subscription of `5000/- from 17-07-2010 onwards. Meanwhile the complainant bid the chitty for `51,000/- since he had to meet some urgent personal loans. But when the complainant approached opposite party for the bided amount opposite party raised unnecessary and illegal demand. Since complainant had to meet some urgent personal loans, he sent a lawyer notice Ext.A1 demanding the bidded amount within 3 days. Opposite party was not ready to heed the demand. Opposite party sent a false reply which is marked as Ext.A2. Ext.A2 is the pass book of the complainant which shows, he had paid more than 10 instalments. Opposite party produced sub rules of the group deposit scheme which is marked as Ext.B2.
5. DW1 deposed before the Forum that the complainant had bid the chitty for `51,000/- on 8-4-2011. The amount is not paid to the complainant since he has not furnished sufficient sureties. Sufficient security means either the salary certificate of one government employee or the property security by creating mortgage infavour of the society or by giving lieu on fixed deposits of other establishments. PW1 deposed before the Forum that he was ready to provide sureties or gold as sufficient security.
6. While perusing the depositions of both parties (complainant and opposite party) are ready to comply the terms and conditions of GDS Scheme. So we are not going to the merits of this case. Complainant is ready to provide sufficient security either in the form of salary certificate of government employees of by creating mortgage in favour of the society or by giving lieu on gold or fixed deposits of other establishments.
7. As a successful bidder of GDS scheme complainant is entitled for the bidded amount after providing sufficient security.
In the result, complaint is allowed and opposite party is directed to pay `1,49,900/- as per the GDS scheme on condition of furnishing satisfactory security as envisaged under the scheme. Time for compliance is 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. If the complainant did not furnish security as prescribed under the scheme then on receiving a request from the complainant the amount he paid in the scheme shall be refunded to him within 2 weeks from the date of receipt of the application. No order as to cost.
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exts.
A1.21-5-2011 Copy of lawyer notice.
A2. 25-5-2011 reply notice.
A3. Member No.C.2031 Pass book of the complainant.
PW1. Raghuram Shenoy.
DW1. K.S.Prabhakaran.
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Pj/
