AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This is a revision petition against the order dated 28.03.2016 passed by Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram (for short, ''State Commission'') in Appeal no.321/2014, which was filed by the petitioner against the order dated 11.04.2014 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kollam (for short, ''District Forum'') in C.C. No.77/2012.
The case of the petitioner/complainant is basically on two issues. One, the OPs, i.e., Managing Director and Manager of KSFE Ltd. did not pay interest of 10% against FD No.9667 of Rs.40,000/- for the period of 27.03.2010 to 18.6.2011 amounting to Rs.4892.72; and two, the OPs collected an excess interest amount to Rs.113.12 as interest on gold loan of Rs. 17,000/- availed by him on 16.02.2010 which was redeemed on 7.10.2010. For compensation towards damages, mental agony, financial loss, humiliation, court expenses, travelling etc., the petitioner has also claimed an amount of Rs.50,000/- with interest 18% from 18.6.2011, the date on which his FD was closed by the OPs, which in the eyes of the petitioner was a deficiency in service.
Briefly, the facts of the case are that the petitioner joined in the firm of the OPs as a subscriber in Chitty No.16-07 with Chital No.59 on 20.07.2007. The chitty period was 50 months and the chitty (sal) amount was Rs.50,000/-. Soon after joining, in November 2007, the petitioner successfully bid the chitty for Rs.15,000/- and was awarded prize money of Rs.35,000/- . He received this amount of Rs.35,000/- by pledging two FDs viz. FD No.9261 of Rs.15,000/- and FD No.9667 of Rs.40,000/-. In the latter FD of Rs.40,000/-, there was also an element of loan of Rs.20,000/- availed against the security of the FD.
According to the petitioner, he defaulted owing to carelessness on the part of the OPs. Some installments of the chitty therefore had to be cleared by the petitioner closing his FD No.9261 of Rs.15,000/- on 30.04.2010, which was used to pay installment upto December 2010. The petitioner was informed vide registered letter dated 13.06.2011 that he was in default of 13 installments up till June 2011. He was also informed that if the default was not rectified immediately the other FD no.9667 would have to be closed prematurely. According to the petitioner, the number of defaults were only 7. The petitioner responded by paying Rs.8,000/-, covering installments upto July, 2011 along with penalty interest of Rs.347/-. The OPs however entered an amount of Rs.14,000/- as paid on 18.06.2011 in the passbook of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, this was to cover up the deficiency in service. On the same day i.e. 18.06.2011, the petitioner asked the OPs to close the FD of Rs.40,000/-. Adjusted for Rs.1000/- towards chitty last installment and an amount of Rs.7,620/- towards the loan amount in the above FD, he received a cheque of Rs.31,280/-. According to the petitioner, the OPs did not pay interest on this FD from 27.03.2010 to 18.06.2011 @ 10% i.e. Rs.4,898.72.
The other complaint of the petitioner is regarding the gold loan of Rs.17,000/- on 16.02.2010. This was closed on 07.10.2010. The allegation here is that the OPs took an interest of 12.56% instead of the actual interest of 11.50%, and thus deprived him of Rs. 113.32.
The respondents/OPs version of the events narrated above are now summarized. Admitting that the petitioner joined the said chitty, with a duration of 50 months and a Chitty Sala of Rs.50,000/- ,and a corresponding installment of Rs.1000/- per month, they have submitted that the said chitty was bid in favour of the petitioner on 12.11.2007 and the prize money of Rs.35,000/- was first transferred to Fixed Deposit on 12.12.2007 by pledging the same as security, and thereafter encashed on 30.07.2008 by the petitioner on the security of FD No.9261 for Rs.15,000/- and FD No.9667 for Rs.40,000/-. Remittance of Rs.1000/- installments were made by the petitioner till October 2008 and thereafter there were defaults. Despite repeated requests the petitioner failed to remit the chitty installments forcing the OPs to issue a notice informing him about the defaults and warning that the security of above said chitty will be prematurely closed within 7 days of the notice, if the petitioner failed to clear the dues as directed. Since the petitioner did not turn up, on 30.04.2010, his FD no.9261 for Rs.15,000/- was closed and adjusted towards installments nos. 28 to 35 i.e. 8 installments to cover dues from 12.10.2009 to 10.05.2010. The balance amount of Rs.6140/- was credited in the said chitty. This was sufficient only for subsequent 6 months installments i.e. from June 2010 to November 2010. According to the OPs, a registered notice was sent to the petitioner on 04.05.2011, which was returned with an endorsement "Addressee Left". The petitioner had failed to intimate his change of address. In this notice, defaulted amount of Rs.5,000/- with interest from December 2010 to April 2011 had been mentioned. In the month of June 2011, the petitioner furnished his changed address. Thereafter, notice dated 13.06.2011 was served and in response to this, the petitioner visited their office on 18.06.2011 and after ascertaining the actual dues in the chitty, he remitted Rs.8,347/- vide receipt no.30058. This amount along with the credit available in the chitty already as mentioned earlier, was adjusted as his remittance for 14 further installments.
At this time, the petitioner also decided to close his FD.9667 for Rs.40,000/-. This was done and the amount due was duly refunded to him. Therefore, there was no deficiency in service. On the other hand, it was the petitioner who had actually committed breach of agreement. Coming to the specific allegation of interest due on the FD of Rs.40,000/-, the OPs have explained that this FD was contracted on 27.03.2008 for an amount of Rs.40,000/- with interest @ 9%. Against this, the petitioner had availed a loan of Rs.20,000/-. On maturity of this FD, he had been paid interest @ 9%. He subsequently renewed this FD for a further period of one year on 27.03.2009, maturing on 27.3.2010. On 27.03.2010 however, the petitioner failed to renew this FD. Since there was a live FD loan embedded in the said FD, it was closed, on the request of the petitioner, on 18.6.2011, and from this closed amount, Rs.1000/- was transferred towards closure of the chitty installment and the balance remitted to him. No interest was however paid on the FD for the period from 27.03.2010 to 18.06.2011, and it is this amount that the petitioner now claims in his complaint.
The petitioner had also availed a gold loan of Rs.17,000/- vide gold loan account no.34127 dated 15.2.2010. This was closed on 07.10.2010 i.e. after 243 days. The petitioner was made aware of the detailed provisions of the gold loan by the OPs and the extra interest that was charged to him as per his complaint is explained by the fact that the period of gold loan attracted an additional interest of 1% as penal interest since the period of loan exceeded 6 months.
The petitioner approached the District Forum, which did not find any unfair trade practice or deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Further, the District Forum took the view that in so far as some disputes were concerned with settlement of accounts between the parties, this could not be classified as a consumer dispute. Hence, the complaint was dismissed.
Being aggrieved with this order of the District Forum, the petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission, which also found no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs as they have acted under the terms and conditions of the chitty as well as the gold loan scheme. In the result, the State Commission also dismissed the appeal as it found no grounds to interfere with the order passed by the District Forum. Hence, this revision petition before us.
We have heard the petitioner in person and perused the records carefully.
As brought out in earlier paras above, the main facts of the case are not at all in dispute. What is in dispute is that according to the petitioner, the OPs could not have renewed the FD of Rs.40,000/- on its date of maturity on 23.03.2010. Indeed, had they done so, the petitioner would have been entitled to interest for the period from 27.03.2010 to 18.06.2011 when this FD was closed. The contention, put forth by the OPs, has been that they could not have renewed FD for two reasons viz. one, the absence of instructions of the petitioner, and two, in view of the fact that there was a loan against this FD also. The District Forum had examined this aspect on the basis of facts and documents and had concluded that the overdue period under dispute was not considered for earning interest as there was a live FD loan in the said deposit. Therefore, as per rules, the petitioner was not entitled to get interest from 27.03.2010 to 18.06.2011.
As far as the dispute on gold loan is concerned, admitted facts are that the petitioner had availed a gold loan of Rs.17,000/- at 11.5% for repayment on or before 180 days. In fact, the petitioner had closed the loan account after 234 days, i.e. more than 6 months (180 days) , therefore he had been charged ,as per the loan agreement, an additional interest @ 1% for the entire due amount. The OPs submitted that all these terms and conditions had been well explained to the petitioner and this fact has not been disputed expressly by the petitioner. In any case, no cogent evidence has been advanced by the petitioner in this regard. In the event, it may be fairly concluded that the OPs acted as per the terms and conditions of the gold loan agreement and therefore cannot be held to have been deficient in their services.
Resultantly, there being no errors apparent of either fact or law, we see no need to interfere with the order of the State Commission. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.