Present : Sri. C.T. Sabu, President
Smt. Sreeja. S., Member
Sri. Ram Mohan R, Member
30th day of November 2022
CC 290/14 filed on 22/05/14
Complainant : Baiju.T.P, S/o Porinchu, Thekkanath House,
Thoravu Village, Pudukad Desom, Pudukad.P.O,
Mukundapuram Taluk, Thrissur
(By Adv. Shrikumar Nambanath, Thrissur)
Opposite Parties :1. Harisree Kallur Soubhagya Kuries (P) Ltd,
Head Office Kallur, Mavinchuvadu,
P.O.Muttithady, Mukundapuram Taluk, Thrissur.
2. Managing Partner, Harisree Kallur Soubhagya Kuries (P)
Ltd, Head Office Kallur, Mavinchuvadu,
P.O.Muttithady, Mukundapuram Taluk, Thrissur.
3. Manager, Harisree Kallur Soubhagya Kuries (P) Ltd,
Head Office Kallur, Mavinchuvadu,
P.O.Muttithady, Mukundapuram Taluk, Thrissur.
(By Adv.Asha.S.P, Thrissur)
O R D E R
By Smt. Sreeja S. Member:
The complainant subscribed 2 tickets in the Kuri No. SK 6 vide statement 52 and 53 run by the opposite parties. The kuri had Rs.5,00,000/- sala and started on 30/06/11. On 30/12/13 the complainant auctioned both the kuri for Rs.6.5 laksh to pay the loan taken from Pudukad Service Cooperative Bank. His 12 cents of land were mortgaged towards its security but till date the opposite party did not give the kuri auction money. The act of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service and same caused a loss of 1 lakh and mental agony. Hence this complaint.
2) Version by Opposite parties
On receiving complaint notice was properly issued to the opposite parties. The counsel for the opposite parties appeared before the Commission and filed version. The version of the opposite parties is as follows : The complaint is not maintainable. The opposite party admits the subscription of kuri and its payments and its auction. The complainant never produced adequate security to release the auction money. The failure from the part of the complainant is the only reason for not disbursing the kuri money. The complainant informed that the land sought to be pledged towards the kuri security was kept in mortgage with Pudukad SCB. He demanded to pay the money to release the document mortgaged as above and offered to mortgage subsequently with the opposite party. The opposite party cannot release kuri money without proper security documents. No loss has been accrued to the complainant by the act of opposite parties. He is not entitled to any reliefs and prayed for a dismissal.
3)Points for consideration are ?
a) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite
parties or not ?
b) Reliefs and costs ?
4) The counsel for complainant appeared before this Commission and filed proof affidavit in which he has affirmed and explained all the averments stated in the complaint in detail. The produced document was marked as Ext. P1 to P2. Ext.P1 is the kuri pass book of ticket No. 52 and Ext.P2 is the kuri pass book of ticket No. 53 . From the side of opposite party also filed proof affidavit in tune with the version filed by them. The document produced by them is marked as Ext.R1. Ext.R1 is the lawyer notice received from complainant.
5) Point :
The case of the complainant is that he subscribed 2 tickets of kuries with the opposite parties. Ext.P1 and P2 are the respective kuri pass book. Both the kuries auctioned on 30/12/13 for Rs. 6.50 lakhs. The kuri and respective auctions are admitted by the opposite parties.
The gist of the dispute is that the opposite party failed to dispense the kuri auction money even though the complainant provided sufficient sureties and securities. Two persons were ready to stand as surety and 12 cents of land with residential house was also provided towards the security. He auctioned the kuri intending to close the loan availed from Pudukad SCB and due to deficiency in service from the part of the opposite party it could not be paid causing loss and agony. On the other hand opposite party denied all the allegation alleging that the complainant was not ready to furnish proper security and required to pay the auction money to repay the loan of Pudukad SCB and after closing the said loan and Bank will release the document pledged therein for the loan and the same will be produce before the opposite party towards kuri security. The opposite party cannot release the money without giving proper security and assurance to give security is not sufficient to release auction money. In short non furnishing of proper security turn to be the crucial point to be adjudicated. Since such a defense setup against the complainant, the complainant should substantiate his case. Neither in the complaint nor in the proof affidavit the name and details of the persons stood as sureties are also provided. Moreover the complainant failed to produce before this commission the documents pertaining to the land sought for mortgage or took steps as against opposite party calling to produce the securities furnished before them to release the auction amount. Under such circumstances we are of the view that the complainant failed to prove his respective case and failure to do so makes his case not established before this commission. Therefore we find that the complaint is devoid of merits and same need to be dismissed.
In the result complaint dismissed without cost.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Commission this the 30th day of November 2022.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
Sreeja S Ram Mohan R C.T. Sabu
Member Member President
Appendix
Complainant’s Exhibits :
Ext.P1 is the kuri pass book of ticket No. 52.
Ext.P2 is the kuri pass book of ticket No. 53.
Opposite Parties’ Exhibits :
Ext.R1 is the lawyer notice received from complainant.
Id/-
Member
