KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

APPEAL NO. 229/12

JUDGMENT DATED:15.01.2013

(Against the order in CC.538/10 on the file of CDRF, Ernakulam dtd:20.08.2009)

PRESENT:

JUSTICE SHRI. P.Q.BARKATH ALI               :  PRESIDENT

Unnikrishna Kuries, Koovappadam(P)Ltd.,

Koovappadam, Kochi-2, R/by its                       : APPELLANT

Chairman.

(By Adv: Sri.Denny Joseph)

          Vs.

Tom Thomas,

12/435, Ollassayil House,

M.K.Raghavan Road,                                         : RESPONDENT

Koovappadam, Kochi-2.

(By Adv: Sri.Jinu Joseph)

JUDGMENT

JUSTICE SHRI.P.Q. BARKATH ALI : PRESIDENT

          This is an appeal filed under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act filed by the opposite party in CC.538/10 on the file of CDRF, Ernakulam challenging the order of the Forum dated, August 20, 2009.

          2.      The case of the respondent/complainant as testified by him as PW1 and as detailed in the complaint before the Forum is this.  PW1 was a subscriber of 10 kuries conducted by the appellant M/s Unni Mishiha Kuries, Koovappadam (P) Limited, Kochi.  His subscription for each kuri was Rs.1000/- per month for 60 numbers.  Complainant paid the subscription from August 17, 2005 to February 17, 2006. Thereafter he defaulted.  The appellant refused to refund the amount stating that they have forfeited the amount as Foreman’s Commission.  The claimant filed the claim claiming the refund of the said amount.

          3.      The appellant/opposite party is M/s Unni Mishiha Kuries, Koovappadam (P) Limited, Kochi.  The Manager of the company in his version contended that the amount subscribed was only Rs.54,660/-, that the company is entitled to Rs.10,000/- in each kuri as Foreman’s Commission and that therefore complaint is to be dismissed.

          4.      The complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts.A1 to A12 was marked on his side.  No evidence was adduced by the appellant/OP.  On an appreciation of the evidence the Forum found that the appellant is entitled to only Rs.3000/- as Foreman’s Commission and ordered refund of the balance amount subscribed by the complainant with interest and costs of Rs.1000/-.  The opposite party has come up with the appeal challenging the order of the Forum.

          5.      The only point to be arises for consideration is whether the impugned order of the Forum can be sustained?  The counsel for the appellant argued that company is entitled to Rs.10,000/- as Foreman’s Commission under each kuri and that therefore appellant is not bound to pay the amount to the complainant.  The counsel for the respondent/complainant on the other hand supported the impugned order of the Forum.

          6.      For several reasons I am unable to accept the above contention  of the appellant.  Section 16-1-B of Kerala Chitties Act of 1975 stipulates that Foreman’s Commission shall not exceed 5% which comes to Rs.3000/- in one kuri totaling to Rs.30,000/-.  But only if the terms of the kuries are completed successfully Foreman is entitled to that Commission; but in the present case complainant has defaulted the kuries.  Therefore the appellant is entitled to Rs.3000/- Foreman’s Commission in total.  Finding of the Forum in this point is confirmed.  No other point is argued before me.

          In the result I find no merit in this appeal.  The same is hereby dismissed with costs of Rs.3000/-.

JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI:  PRESIDENT

VL.