STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION KERALA FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/32/A/290/2021 null THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES PRESENT ADDRESS - BHADRATHA THRISSUR ,KERALA.

THE GENERAL MANAGER BUSINESS CHARGE PRESENT ADDRESS - KSFE BHADRATHA THRISUR ,KERALA.

THE MANAGER KSFE MANDAPATHINKADAVU BRANCH OTTASEKHARAMANGALAM PRESENT ADDRESS - THRISSUR ,KERALA.

.......Appellant(s)

Versus D VIJAYAN PRESENT ADDRESS - J J NIVAS PANDARAKKONAM CHENNADU OTTASEKHARAMANGALAM P O THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695125 ,KERALA.

.......Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SRI.B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR , PRESIDENT FOR THE APPELLANT:

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES, SREEVARAHAM N G MAHESH (Advocate)

THE GENERAL MANAGER BUSINESS CHARGE , In-Person THE MANAGER KSFE MANDAPATHINKADAVU BRANCH OTTASEKHARAMANGALAM , In-Person FOR THE RESPONDENT:

D VIJAYAN , In-Person DATED: INVALID DATETIME

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL No. 290/2021 JUDGEMENT DATED : 21.03.2025 (Against the order in C.C. No.148/2016 on the files of DCDRC, Thiruvananthapuram)

PRESENT:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA : PRESIDENT KUMAR SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER APPELLANTS:

1.

The Managing Director, Kerala State Financial Enterprises Ltd., Bhadratha, Trichur

2.

The General Manager (Business Charge), KSFE Ltd., Bhadratha, Trichur

3.

The Manager, KSFE, Mandapithinkadavu Branch, Ottasekharamangalam, Neyyattinkara (by Adv. Kallambalam S. Sreekumar and Adv. Sreevaraham N.G. Mahesh)

Vs.

RESPONDENT:

D. Vijayan, J.J. Nivas, Pandarakonam, Chenadu, Ottasekharamangalam P.O., Thiruvananthapuram - 695 125

JUDGEMENT

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR : PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties in C.C. No.148/2016 on the files of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram (for short, ‘the District Commission’).

2. The complainant was the subscriber of a chitty, conducted by the opposite parties, having a sala of Rs.2,00,000/-(Rupees Two Lakh only) to be paid in 40 instalments. The period of the said chitty was from 19.10.2012 to 12.01.2016. The th complainant, after making payment of the 24 instalment, auctioned the chitty. The complainant approached the opposite parties to get the chitty amount released. As per nd the direction of the 2 opposite party, the complainant submitted documents as security before the opposite parties for releasing the amount. However, after two months, the complainant was informed that the property covered by the said documents could not be accepted as security, since there was no pathway to the property. Thereafter, the complainant produced title deed No.1376/10 of Ottasekharamangalam as security. Even after submitting the said title deed and other relevant documents, the opposite parties did not respond till 06.12.2014.

3. On 06.12.2014, the complainant sent a notice to the opposite parties for which they submitted a reply stating that they were prepared to release the amount after executing the documents by the complainant. However, when the complainant approached the opposite parties, they were not prepared to release the amount. In the said circumstances, the complainant filed the above complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The documents produced by the complainant and the money were not released to the complainant.

4. The opposite parties admitted the subscription of the chitty by the complainant. The opposite parties also admitted that the complainant auctioned the th chitty in the 24 auction. However, since the complainant did not furnish the security, the amount was not released to the complainant.

5. Before the District Commission, PW1 was examined and Exhibits P1 to P4 were marked for the complainant. DW1 was examined and Exhibits D1 to D9 were marked for the opposite parties. After evaluating the evidence, the District Commission directed the opposite parties to pay Rs.1,70,500/-(Rupees One Lakh Seve