MAHARASHTRA APEX CORPORATION LTD & ANR Vs. ARAKKAL KUNHEED
LAWS(KERCDRC)-2010-6-11
KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Decided on June 01,2010

Maharashtra Apex Corporation Ltd And Anr Appellant
VERSUS
Arakkal Kunheed Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) THE above appeal is directed against the order dated 30th January, 2004 passed by CDRF, Wayanad , Kalpetta in OP.No. 104/01. The complaint therein was filed by the respondent herein against the appellants/opposite parties alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in their failure to issue the clearance certificate and to release the blank cheque leafs and signed blank papers which were obtained by the opposite parties at the time of availing the loan by the complainant. The opposite parties entered appearance and denied the alleged deficiency in service. They contended that the complainant has not paid the entire amount due under the B1 higher purchase agreement and that a further sum of Rs. 49,789.40 is still due from the complainant as on 30.6.2001. Thus, the opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
(2.) BEFORE the Forum below, the complainant was examined as PW1and A1 to A4 documents were marked on his side. A witness from the side of the opposite parties was examined as OPW1 and B1 to B7 were also marked on the side of the opposite parties. On the basis of the evidence on record, the Forum below passed the impugned order allowing the complaint in OP.104/01 and thereby directing the opposite parties to issue loan clearance certificate and also to release the blank cheque leafs, blank signed papers, land tax receipt and the original document of the landed property belonging to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of copy of the impugned order. Aggrieved by the said order, the present appeal is filed by the opposite parties therein.
(3.) WHEN this appeal was taken up for final hearing, there was no representation for the respondent/complainant. We heard the learned Counsel for the appellants/opposite parties. The Counsel for the appellants submitted his arguments based on the grounds urged in the memorandum of the present appeal. He argued for the position that the Forum below had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint in OP.104/01 and that the impugned order was passed without appreciating the evidence on record in its correct perspective. He vehemently argued for the position that the respondent/complainant defaulted payment of the instalments due under B1 higher purchase agreement and that the complainant was liable to pay interest at the rate of 3% per month on the defaulted amount and that a balance of Rs. 49,789.40 was due to the opposite parties from the complainant, as on 30.6.2001. Thus, the appellants prayed for setting aside the impugned order passed by the Forum below. The points that arise for consideration are: 1. Whether the CDRF, Wayanad, Kalpetta had the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint in OP.104/01? 2 Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the appellants/opposite parties as alleged by the respondent/ complainant? 3. Whether the Forum below can be justified in passing the impugned order allowing the complaint in OP.104/01? Points 1 to 3:;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.