w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n

Aleykutty Thomas v/s Kerala State Financial Enterprises Ltd, rep its Managing Director, Bhadratha & Others

    Appeal No. 850 of 2015

    Decided On, 31 October 2017

    At, Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thiruvananthapuram

    By, MEMBER

    For the Appellant: D.R. Rajesh, Advocate. For the Respondents: P. Jayapalan Thampi, Advocate.

Judgment Text

S.S. Satheesachandran: President

Appeal is filed by the Complainant in CC 710/2013 on the file of Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum for short “District Forum”, Ernakulam. Her complaint was dismissed, and aggrieved by that Order she has filed this appeal.

2. Complain

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

nt was a subscriber to a chitty conducted by the sixth opposite party. Monthly subscription for the chitty was @ Rs.10000/- with sala of Rs.5 lakhs was prized by complainant in the 4th monthly auction held. She produced her salary certificates and also of another employee(surety) as security for receiving the prize amount. Surety’s salary certificate was found not acceptable as she was due to retire within 3 months from completion of chitty where rule insisted for having service up to a period of 6 months from termination of chitty. Sixth Opposite party directed the complainant to produce fresh surety to receive the prized amount. According to complainant, she instructed the sixth opposite party to invest the prize amount in a fixed deposit, but, it was not complied with. Alleging deficiency of service she filed the complaint and claimed compensation from all opposite parties with an alternative prayer for refund of the three instalments remitted towards the chitty. Opposite parties filed version contending that complainant had no sustainable claim to be canvassed of and as per byelaw and rules applicable to the chitty complainant was bound to pay some more amount, but, it was adjusted and the transaction was treated as settled.3. District Forum appreciating the materials found that the complainant had no sustainable claim, and, in that view of the matter dismissed the complaint.Appeal directed against the Order of the Forum coming up for hearing learned counsel for appellant submitted that he is confining the challenge to claim only the alternate relief canvassed i.e for repayment of the sums paid towards three monthly subscriptions for the chitty. 4. Heard both sides.5. Learned counsel for respondents submitted that as per byelaw and rules applicable the prized amount was deposited in Treasury Savings Bank bearing 10.25% interest and monthly subscriptions due on chitty were adjusted from that account . On termination of chitty it was found that the complainant still owed some more amount as dues towards the chitty. However, to maintain customer relationship the transaction was treated as settled. Complainant has no sustainable claim for refund of monthly subscription paid before prizing chitty is the further submission of counsel. Opposite parties have produced subscriber ledger Ext.B7 which reflects that the submission made by learned counsel for respondents that on termination of chitty some more amount was due from complainant, but it was settled with grace by opposite parties. We find the claim canvassed by appellant to press for the alternate relief raised in the complaint is devoid of merit.Appeal is dismissed directing both sides to suffer their costs.

Already A Member?