Disposed

Ravikumar.P.K v. the Managing Director

Kerala HC22 Mar 2019WP(C)/8150/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a writ petition regarding overdue chitty payments. It directed the petitioners to pay Rs. 1 lakh in lumpsum and balance amount in 12 EMIs, capped collection charges at 1%, and ordered the branch manager to consider the petitioners' representation on account discrepancies.

What did the court decide?

Directors to pay Rs. 1 lakh lumpsum and balance in 12 EMIs; collection charges capped at 1%; branch manager to reconsider account discrepancy.

Ravikumar.P.K Vs the Managing Director — Consumer Protection | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF MARCH 2019 / 1ST CHAITHRA, 1941

¶5

WP(C).No. 8150 of 2019

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

1 RAVIKUMAR.P.K, POOTHUVALLIL HOUSE, CHANDIROOR P.O., ALAPPUZHA.

¶8

2 VALSA.K.K., W/O. RAVIKUMAR, POOTHU VALLIL HOUSE, CHANDIROOR P.O., ALAPPUZHA.

¶9

BY ADVS. SMT.T.K.SREEKALA KUM.NARAYANI HARIKRISHNAN

¶10

RESPONDENT/S:

¶11

1 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KSFE LIMITED, 'BHADRATHA', MUSEUM ROAD, TRICHUR 680 005.

¶12

2 THE BRANCH MANAGER, KSFE, AROOR 688 534.

¶13

3 SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, REVENUE RECOVERY, KSFE REGIONAL OFFICE, TRICHUR 680 001.

¶14

R1 TO R3 BY ADVS. SRI.JACOB P.ALEX SHRI.MANU SANKAR P. SRI.JOSEPH P.ALEX

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.03.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

WP(C).No. 8150 of 2019 2

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

Petitioners, husband and wife, are subscribers of

¶19

two chitties conducted by the Kerala State Financial Enterprises, Aroor branch. The chitties were priced in favour of the petitioners and the amounts were received by the petitioners, however, repayments were not effected in terms of the chitty agreement and thus, notices were issued to the petitioners and thereupon, petitioners have submitted Ext.P2 representation before the Managing Director of the 1^st respondent.

¶20

The outstanding dues are virtually admitted by the petitioners, however, the relief sought for is

¶21

payment of the outstanding amounts in reasonable equated monthly installments, and also submitted that, petitioners are prepared to pay an amount of Rs.1 lakhs in lumpsum within two weeks from the date

¶22

of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶23

I have heard learned counsel for the

¶24

petitioners, learned Government Pleader and the

¶25

learned Standing Counsel appearing for KSFE and

¶26

perused the pleadings and the documents on record.

¶27

According to learned Standing Counsel, an amount of Rs.5,71,593/- is due from the petitioners,

¶28

WP(C).No. 8150 of 2019 3

¶29

excluding the collection charges. However, this is disputed by learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Since the petitioners have put forth the suggestion as specified above, I think it is only appropriate that the writ petition is disposed of with suitable directions.

¶30

There will be a direction to the petitioners to

¶31

remit Rs.1 lakhs within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and the balance amount due shall be paid in 12 equated monthly installments starting from 16.04.2019, and on the corresponding dates of the succeeding months.

¶32

So far as the issue raised by the petitioners with respect to the discrepancy in the account statement, the 2^nd respondent shall consider the same, taking into account, Ext.P2 representation submitted by the petitioners and take a decision at the earliest possible, if required, after providing participation and hearing to the petitioners.

¶33

I make it clear that, if the petitioners are not making the payments in accordance with the directions contained above, the respondents will be at liberty to proceed in accordance with law and recover the amount in lump.

¶34

WP(C).No. 8150 of 2019 4

¶35

If the petitioners are making the payment directly to the KSFE, the collection charges shall be confined to 1% of the total amount deposited.

¶36

The writ petition is disposed of, accordingly.

Sd/-

SHAJI P.CHALY

JUDGE

uu 22.03.2019

WP(C).No. 8150 of 2019 5

¶42

APPENDIX

¶43

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶44

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST PETITIONER DATED 24.12.2018. EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND PETITIONER DATED 24.12.2018. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 8.1.2019.

¶45

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION GIVEN BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONERS DATED 23.1.2019.

¶46

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:NIL

¶47

//TRUE COPY//

¶48

P.A. TO JUDGE

Ravikumar.P.K v. the Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravikumar.P.K v. the Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.C.Shaji, Vs Kerala Water Authority

D. K. Jayadevan, Vs State of Kerala

Thomas K. Paul, Vs Kerala Water Authority

Muthupandi Vs the Secretary

Aimee Shibu Vs the Central Board of Secondary Education

Sri Varalakshmi Agencies, Vs Union of India