DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ERNAKULAM
Dated this the 18th day of August 2023
[
Filed on: 20/12/2018
PRESENT
Shri.D.B.Binu President
Shri.V.Ramachandran Member
Smt.Sreevidhia.T.N Member
CC No. 519/2018.
COMPLAINANT
Jose K J., S/o.K.V.Joseph, Kadamakkery House, House No.213, Pallipuram P.O., Cherthala, Aalappuzha-688 541
Vs.
OPPOSITE PARTY
Navas K K, aged 40 years, s/o. Kahadir Pillai, Karivelimattom House, Near Model Engineering College, Thrikkakara P.O., Kochin-682021.
(o.p rep. by Adv.Sain Paul Alunkal, Chamber Nos.820,821,861, 8th Floor, Kerala High Court Advocates’ Association Golden Jubilee Chamber Complex, High Court Campus, Ernakulam, Kochi-682 031)
F I N A L O R D E R
D.B.Binu, President
- A brief statement of facts of this complaint is as stated below:
The complainant filed the complaint under Section 12(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite party, who owns Kariveli Mattam Chits and Manikyam Private Limited. The complainant had joined two chits of Rs 90,000 each, with a duration of 15 months from July 7, 2015, to September 7, 2016. The opposite party received monthly payments of Rs 12,000 from the complainant and recorded them in the passbook. The complainant had made payments until August 13, 2016, totaling Rs 1,33,900. However, the opposite party stopped collecting the installments and refused to return the money to the complainant.
The opposite party had assured the complainant that the chit was registered in Kerala and that the money would be safe. The complainant had joined the chits with the intention of purchasing a new camera and expanding their business. As a result, the complainant had to take a loan from a bank in the name of their brother-in-law. The complaint seeks compensation from the opposite party amounting to Rs 1,80,000, plus interest, and Rs 5 lakhs for the hardships and losses suffered in both chits.
2). Notice
Notice was issued from the Commission to the opposite party. The opposite party received the notice and filed their version.
- THE VERSION OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY
The opposite party denies the validity of the complaint on both legal and factual grounds. They argue that the necessary party has not been included in the complaint and that the complainant has concealed crucial information. The opposite party claims that the issue is not a consumer dispute as per the Consumer Protection Act but rather a contractual breach. They assert that the commission lacks jurisdiction and the complainant should seek remedy through a civil court.
The opposite party explains that their office was closed by the police due to criminal charges against them, leading to a lack of service. They argue that they cannot verify the complainant's payments without access to records seized by the police. Additionally, they state that the complainant's claim is time-barred and should be dismissed with costs to prevent harm to the opposite party.
4) Evidence
The complainant had produced proof affidavit and 4 documents that were marked as Exhibits A-1 to A-4.
EXHIBIT A1- The copy of the Pass book of the opposite party
EXHIBIT A2- The copy of the quotation dated 3-11-16.
EXHIBIT A3- The copy of the Retail Invoice dated 22-11-16.
EXHIBIT A4- The copy of the Pass book OF Union Bank
5) The main points to be analysed in this case are as follows:
i) Whether the complaint is maintainable or not?
ii) Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the side of the opposite parties to the complainant?
iii) If so, whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief from the side of the opposite parties?
iv) Costs of the proceedings if any?
6) The issues mentioned above are considered together and are answered as follows:
As per Section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act,1986, a consumer is a person who buys any goods or hires or avails of any services for a consideration that has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment. The complainant had produced the copy of the Pass book of the opposite party (EXHIBIT A-1). Hence, the complainant is a consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Point No. i) goes against the opposite party.
In the present case, the complainant filed the complaint against the opposite party, alleging non-repayment of the chit amounts and seeking compensation for the losses suffered.
The opposite party failed to collect the installments as per the agreed terms of the chits, resulting in a breach of their obligation. This constitutes a deficiency in service under Section 2(1)(g) of the Consumer Protection Act., 1986:
“deficiency” means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service;”
Moreover, the opposite party assured the complainant that the chit was registered and the money would be safe, which turned out to be false. This amounts to an unfair trade practice under Section 2(1)(r) of the Act.
As per above Section, unfair trade practice includes any deceptive practice to secure the consumer's business. The opposite party, by assuring the complainant that the chit was registered and the money would be safe, engaged in a deceptive practice to induce the complainant to join the chits.
Considering the evidence presented, including the passbook (Exhibit A-1), it is established that the complainant had made payments towards the chit, totaling Rs.1,80,900/-. The opposite party's failure to repay the chit amounts constitutes a breach of their contractual obligation. Therefore, the complainant is entitled to receive the amount paid, along with reasonable compensation for the losses suffered.
In the absence of any specific reasons provided by the opposite party for the non-repayment of the chit amounts to the complainant, and considering the evidence presented by the complainant, the commission finds the opposite party liable for the breach of contract and deficient service.
As per Section 2(1)(g) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, deficiency in service includes any failure or negligence in fulfilling the obligations agreed upon in the contract. In this case, the opposite party had a contractual obligation to collect the chit installments as per the agreed terms and return the money to the complainant at the end of the chit duration. However, they failed to do so without providing any valid reasons.
The evidence presented, including the passbook (Exhibit A-1), clearly establishes that the complainant had made payments towards the chit as per the agreed terms. The opposite party's refusal to return the money and their failure to fulfil their contractual obligations amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
The failure to fulfil contractual obligations and the resultant loss to the consumer constitute deficiency in service under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Therefore, the opposite party's failure to collect the chit installments and refusal to return the money to the complainant amounts to deficiency in service.
In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the Opposite Party is liable to compensate the complainant.
We find the issues Nos. (ii) to (iv) are found in favour of the complainant for the serious deficiency in service that happened on the side of the opposite party. Naturally, the complainant had suffered a lot of inconveniences, mental agony, hardships, financial loss... etc. due to the negligence on the Opposite Party.
Hence it the prayer is partly allowed as follows:
- The Opposite Party shall refund the amount of Rs 1,80,900 to the complainant along with interest @9.5% from the maturity date till the date of realization.
- The Opposite Parties shall pay the complainant Rs. 30, 000/- as compensation for loss caused to the complainant due to the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and mental pain and agony suffered by the complainant.
- The Opposite Party shall also pay to the complainant Rs.5,000/- towards the cost of the proceedings.
The Opposite Party liable for the above-mentioned directions which shall be complied with by the Opposite Party within 30 days from the date of the receipt of a copy of this order failing which the amount ordered vide (i) shall attract interest @9.5% from the date of maturity of the amount to the date of realization and amount of compensation ordered vide (ii) above shall attract interest @9.5% from the date of order to the date of realization.
Pronounced in the Open Commission on this 18th day of August 2023.
Sd/-
D.B.Binu, President
Sd/-
V.Ramachandran, Member
Sd/-
Sreevidhia.T.N, Member
Assistant Registrar
Forwarded by Order
Appendix
Complainant’s Evidence
EXHIBIT A1- The copy of the Pass book of the opposite party
EXHIBIT A2- The copy of the quotation dated 3-11-16.
EXHIBIT A3- The copy of the Retail Invoice dated 22-11-16.
EXHIBIT A4- The copy of the Pass book OF Union Bank
