C.C.45/2009
Between:
Manda Rajeswara Rao,

S/o Late Ganesh,

60 years, Retired Revenue Employee,

Residing at D.No.18-4-5, Janasakthi Colony,

Balagam, Parvathipuram,

Vizianagaram District. …….Complainant.
And
1. The Branch Manager,

Shriram Chits Pvt., Limited,

Main Road, Parvathipuram,

Vizianagaram District.

2. The Managing Director,

Shriram Chits Pvt., Ltd.,

Sarojinidevi Road, Secunderabad. ……Opposite Parties.

This complaint is coming on for final hearing before us in the presence of Sri M.Krishna Murthy and Sri A.Bhaskara Rao, Advocates for complainant and of Sri P.V.Ganesh, Advocate for opposite parties and having stood over for consideration, theForum made the following:-

O R D E R

This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act praying this For a to direct the opposite party to pay the prize amount of Rs.68,800/- with subsequent interest from 08-03-2008 to till the date of payment at 24% per annum (b) to award compensation of Rs.5,000/- for mental agony, loss, damages, (c) to award costs of the complaint and to grant such other reliefs in the interest of justice. The complainant further submits that he joined in the chit bearing ticket No.PKL.41/44with the opposite party for Rs.1,00,000/- commencing from October, 2007. The complainant paid the said chit monthly instalments as per intimation made by the opposite party. On 08-03-2008 the complainant participated in the auction as he was in dire need of money and he was declared as a highest successful bidder to forego for Rs.32,000/- and the complainant has to get the remaining amount according to the said chit agreement and terms and conditions. The complainant furnished four sureties. Even after furnishing four sureties the prize amount of Rs.68,800/- not given to the complainant without just and reasonable cause they are delaying the payment as such it amounts to deficiency of service. Hence this complaint.

The 1st opposite party filed his counter and the 2nd opposite party filed a memo adopting the counter of 1st opposite party. The 1st opposite party denying all the allegations made in the complaint and all those allegations are not true valid and binding on the opposite party and not tenable at law. The opposite party further admits that the complainant joined as a member in the chit Group No. PKL 41/44 for the value of Rs.1,00,000/- and participated in the auction on 08-03-2008 and agreed to forego of Rs.32,000/- and the rest of the allegations are absolutely false and it is further submitted that the prized subscriber before drawing chit amount must furnish suitable sufficient necessary security to the satisfaction of foreman for payment of future instalments and the same is very clear in the chit agreement and Section 23 of the A.P. Chit Fund Act. The complainant furnished three sureties and further admitted out of three sureties one surety by name Pydithally expressed his unwillingness to act as surety. Hence this opposite party requested the complainant to furnish sufficient sureties to release the prize money and further submitted that the complainant has no source of income the opposite party requested the complainant to furnish sufficient sureties for the due amount. Hence he prays to dismiss the complaint.

Both parties filed evidence affidavits and documents.

Perused the material available on record.

It is the admitted fact that the complainant is one of the members in Chit Group PKL.41/44 for Rs.1,00,000/- and the complainant participated in the auction on 08-03-2008 and agreed to forego Rs.32,000/-. Opposite parties admitted in his counter that the complainant furnished three sureties and out of three one not willing to stand as surety. But the same was negatived by filing a letter from Pydithally. That the opposite party asked the Pydithally not stand as surety and gave pressure on him as a result he gave letter that he is not going to stand as surety due to pressures given by the opposite party. But he agreed to stand as surety and he gave the letter on 10-06-2008. Even after receiving three sureties the opposite parties ought to have accepted the sureties, handover the prize money to the complainant immediately but they fails to handover the prize money without any reasonable cause as such it amounts to deficiency of service. As per condition 20 (a) (i) Agreement of Chit, three Permanent Government/Quasi Government/Public Sector Undertaking Employees whose net monthly salary should be Rs.5,000/- for Rs.1,00,000/- chit. In this case there is dispute regarding the salary drawn by the sureties and there is no dispute whether that the surety stand on behalf of complainant are Government servants or quasi government or public sector undertakings. As such the contention of the complainant that he furnished three sureties immediately, but the opposite party intentionally fails to handover the prize money after accepting sureties and flimsy grounds the opposite parties dragging without paying the money to the complainant. The main purpose of participating in the bid is the complainant is in dire need of money. It is true that the complainant with an intention to use that money participated in the bid as a result he agreed to forego of Rs.32,000/- out of Rs.1,00,000/- and from 08-03-2008 even till today the amount was not paid even after lapse of one year and eight months. As a result of which the complainant suffered inconvenience, hardship, harassment caused to the complainant by the opposite parties without any cause. As such the act of the opposite parties amounts to unfair trade practice and also amounts to deficiency of service. Complainant established his claim. Accordingly petition allowed.

In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the opposite parties to pay Rs.68,800/- (Rupees sixty eight thousand and eight hundred only) immediately to the complainant with interest at 15% per annum from the date of bid i.e., 08-03-2008 till the date of payment. The opposite parties are further directed to pay Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards compensation for mental agony and costs of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only) inclusive of advocate fee of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only).

Dictated to the Steno, transcribed by him, corrected by me and pronounced by us in the open Forum, this the 12th day of November, 2009

C.C.No.77/2009
Between
Veluru Sundaram Nagaraj,

S/o. Sundaraja,

Hindu, aged 44 years,

D.No.3-612, Peerlachavadi Street,

Srikalahasthi …. Complainant

And
Shriram Chits Pvt. Ltd.,

Rep. by its Branch Manager / Foreman,

2-43, Jayarama Rao Street,

Srikalahasthi. …. Opposite party



This complaint coming on before us for final hearing on 13.11.2009 and upon perusing the complaint, written version, written arguments of the complainant and opposite party and other relevant material papers on record and on hearing of Sri G. Ramaiah Pillai, counsel for the complainant and Sri. D. Jayachandra, counsel for the opposite party and having stood over till this day for consideration, the Forum made the following:-



ORDER

DELIVERED BY Sri. M. SUBBARAYUDU NAIDU, MEMBER

ON BEHALF OF THE BENCH



This complaint is filed under Sections 12 and 14 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to pass an order directing the opposite party to refund the amount of Rs.39,860/-, to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- for causing mental agony and also to pay Rs.2,000/- towards legal expenses of the complaint to the complainant and pass such other order or orders as the as the Hon’ble Forum may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.



2. The factual matrix leading to filing of this complaint is set out as here under:

(a) It is the case of the complainant that the opposite party is carrying on chit business having regd. Office at No.44, Sarojinidevi Road, Secunderabad – 500 003. The complainant joined in the chit reference SKY01 under ticket No.3 conducted by the opposite party herein. The above said chit commences from May, 2007. The value of the chit at Rs.10,00,000/-. Monthly subscription is at Rs.25,000/- for duration of 40 months. The date of auction of the chit is scheduled every month on 17th at 5.40 p.m. At the time of commencing of the chit, the complainant was not furnished the copy of chit agreement for his reference. The above said complainant paid the following amounts as per the entries in the pass book.

May 2007 Rs.25,000/-

July 2007 Rs.16,125/-

August 2007 Rs.16,600/-

September 2007 Rs.25,000/-

October 2007 Rs.17,775/-

November 2007 Rs.18,775/-

December 2007 Rs.18,025/-

January 2008 Rs.19,000/-

February 2008 Rs.19,700/-

March 2008 Rs.19,225/-

April 2008 Rs.19,575/-

Total Rs.2,14,800/-



Thereafter due to domestic problems of the complainant, he discontinued and expressed his inability to continue the above said chit transaction. Consequently his name was removed on 07.11.2008 and the substituted subscriber was allowed. According to the terms of the chit, the subscriber who defaulted and removed before the chit termination is entitled for refund of the net amount of subscription paid by him less 5% of the chit amount. According to Bye-laws, the foreman is entitled to subscribe to one or more chits as and when he considers it necessary. He is having right to obtain the chit amount at the third installment without any option draw lot or tendered which is in consideration for conducting the chit. Further, the foreman is also entitled to commission of 5% of the chit amount for each installment except third installment. In the case on hand, the foreman has not distributed the dividend for the installment of Rs.25,000/- during May, 2007. The defaulting subscriber is entitled for the refund of net contributions of Rs.2,14,800/- subject to deduction of 5% of the chit amount. The net amount repayable to the complainant is Rs.2,14,800/ - Rs.10,740/- = Rs.2,04,060/-. Out of that amount, he agreed for the recovery of the trade loan amount of Rs.1,30,296/-. So the balance amount due to the complainant is Rs.73,764/-. Out of the said amount, the complainant was paid Rs.33,904/- leaving a balance of Rs.39,860/-.

(b) According to the opposite party herein, it is mentioned in para 7 of the complaint of the complainant as follows :

The net amount of subscription Rs.2,14,000/-

Dues under trade loan Rs.1,30,296/-

5% of the chit value Rs. 50,000/-

Total Rs.1,80,296/- Rs.1,80,296/-

Balance Rs. 33,904/-



for which the complainant is entitled and paid by way of cheque No.468549 and nothing is payable to the complainant as per the version of the opposite party. So, the complainant got issued a legal notice dated 03.08.2008 to the opposite party questioning how they are entitled to recover the full amount of Rs.50,000/- on the whole of the chit amount from the complainant. But the opposite party remained unmindful. Frustrated by the negligent act of the opposite party, the complainant got issued another legal notice for the second time on 22.08.2008 stating that the opposite party has excessively recovered and is liable to refund the amount of Rs.39,860/-. Later on, the opposite party replied that they are entitled as per the terms of the contract to recover at 5% of the total chit amount, i.e., Rs.50,000/- and so nothing is to be paid to the complainant. Even according to the bye laws of the chit company, the opposite party can recover at 5% on contributed installments. Further it is stated in para 8 of the complaint that the opposite parties has also availed the chit amount of 4th installment without any dividend. There is no justification in recovering of the 5% on the total chit amount of Rs.10,00,000/-. The complainant discontinued from 12th installment and substitute also joined in the scheme. It is further stated in para 9 of the complaint that in similar case, this Hon’ble Forum allowed the deduction of 5% on the contribution amount by the chit subscribers instead of the whole amount and the opposite party complied the said order in CC.79/2008 dated 03.01.2009. Hence, the complaint.

3. (a) The opposite party has resisted the complaint by filing its objections / written version denying the allegations made in the complaint. He has also filed an affidavit reiterating the contents made in the written version. The opposite party does not admit any of the allegations made in the complaint save those are specifically admitted herein and the complainant has put to strict proof of the same. The complaint is not maintainable in law or on facts of the case. The opposite party has narrated his case in para 10 of his written version submitted that the complainant has joined the alleged group 84001 with ticket No.3 and the chit value is Rs.10,00,000/- lakhs to be subscribed at the rate of Rs.25,000/- per month for a period of 40 months. The complainant has paid 10 full installments and 11th part installment and thereafter committed default in payment of installments continuously and the paid up value was Rs.2,14,200/- by the complainant. In fact, the complainant has borrowed a loan of Rs.2,00,000/- on 29.11.2007 from Sriram City Union Finance Limited and agreed to repay the same at the rate of Rs.10,733/- per month and accordingly paid 14 installments and thereafter committed default in repayment of loan amount and there was a due of Rs.1,30,296/- as on 25.02.2009. The complainant had committed default in the non prized chit. As per the terms and conditions of the chit agreement and bye laws of the chit that he has committed the breach of terms of the chit and committed default in payment of installments and as per the chit agreement when a subscriber commits default for consecutive period of three months he is liable to be removed from the chit series and accordingly a notice was served on the complainant on 30.06.2008 by stating that he has paid a sum of Rs.2,14,200/- towards the chit and out of that as per the chit agreement terms 5% of the chit value i.e., a sum of Rs.50,000/- is liable to be deducted towards the damages for the breach of contract and accordingly the said sum along with a sum of Rs.20/- towards the incidental charges was deducted and the complainant is entitled to refund a sum of Rs.1,64,180/-.

(b) At that juncture, the complainant came forward and submitted a letter to the opposite party stating that he is liable to pay the balance amount in the trade loan to Shriram City Union Finance Ltd., and requested to adjust the said sum of Rs.1,30,296/- from and out of Rs.1,64,180/- and there remains an amount of Rs.33,904/- liable to be refunded to the complainant. Accordingly a cheque No.468550 for a sum of Rs1,30,296/- was issued to Shriram City Union Finance Limited and another cheque No.468549 for a sum of Rs.33,904/- was issued to the complainant on 18.02.2009 itself. The complainant has received the cheque and encashed the same as full and final settlement and executed necessary payment vouchers in favour of the complainant. That the complainant was removed from the chit on 07.11.2008 by following the procedure in pursuance of the provisions of the Chit Fund Act, the chit agreement and bye laws of the said series. As per the provisions of Section 23 of A.P. Chit Fund Act and clause -14(d) of Chit Fund Agreement executed by the complainant, the complainant is entitled only to the amount after deducting 5% damages on the chit amount. The allegations with regard to the approaching of the complainant and demanding for Rs.50,000/- and misbehaviour, threatening are all invented for the purpose of the complaint and the opposite party is always maintaining good relationship and decorum with the subscribers including the complainant. So, it is prayed that the Hon’ble Forum may be pleased to dismiss the complaint with exemplary costs.

4. In support of the averments made in the complaint, the complainant has filed his affidavit and also 4 documents which are marked as Ex.A1 to A4. Ex.A1 is the passbook in the name of the complainant issued by the opposite party. Ex.A2 is the office copy of legal notice dated 30.08.2009 issued on behalf of the complainant to the opposite party. Ex.A3 is also the office copy of another legal notice dated 22.08.2009 issued on behalf of the complainant by the complainant’s counsel to the opposite party and Ex.A4 is the reply legal notice dated 26.08.2009 issued on behalf of the opposite party by the learned counsel for the opposite party to the complainant’s advocate as well as to another advocate Sri.P. Jayachandra for earlier legal notice dated 03.08.2009 issued on behalf of the complainant.

5. In support of the averments made in the written version / counter filed on behalf of the opposite party, the branch Manager filed his affidavit and also 5 documents which are marked at Ex.B1 to B5. Ex.B1 is the original agreement of chit signed by the complainant and also Foreman on behalf of the opposite party as well as it bears the signature of Registrar of Chits, Tirupati. Ex.B2 is the office copy of notice of member’s removal from chit No.3411/84001 dated 30.06.2008 issued to the complainant by the Branch Manager of the opposite party. Ex.B3 is the original letter (without date) but it appears as 11.11.2008 on another side, addressed to the Branch Manager of the opposite party. Ex.B4 is also the office copy as it is in Ex.B2 and it is a mere repetition of the same and Ex.B5 is the Photostat copy of bye-laws of the opposite party.

6. The learned counsel for both the parties of the complaint have filed their written arguments in support of their case. By way of evidence, the affidavits of the parties filed reiterating their contentions contained in the complaint and written version / counter.

7. Basing on the pleadings and documentary evidence, the following points that arise for our determination are:

1 Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party

towards the complainant?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs as prayed, if so to what

extent?

3. To what result?

8. Point No.1:- (a) The basic facts of this consumer case is not disputed. The complainant and the opposite party have reiterated their contentions once again by submitting their written arguments. The learned counsel for the complainant Sri G. Ramaiah Pillai has vehemently argued that this consumer dispute arises due to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party towards the complainant while refunding chit amount due to the complainant without accounting properly and thereby he was put in loss of Rs.39,860/-. He was further argued that the complainant was a subscriber of chit fund under group No.84001 with ticket number 3 for the chit value of Rs.10,00,000/- subscribing at Rs.25,000/- in 40 installments and that he paid 10 full installments and 11th installment partly, totaling to Rs.2,14,200/- and thereupon he discontinued from the chit transaction. He was also further argued that due to default of subscriber / complainant, he was served with notice (Ex.B2) by the opposite party for removal from the chit with effect from 30.06.2008. The opposite party further asserted that the complainant is entitled for refund of Rs.2,14,200/- only towards contribution made by him. Out of that amount 5% of chit value of Rs.50,000/- is liable to deducted along with a sum of Rs.20/- towards incidental charges. So, the balance amount to be paid to the complainant is only Rs.1,64,180/- out of Rs.2,14,200/-. The contention of the opposite party is that the complainant is liable to pay Rs.1,30,296/- towards previous trade loan which remains unpaid and after deducting the said amount the remaining amount of Rs.33,904/- was paid to subscriber / complainant on 18.02.2009 nothing is remain to be paid to the complainant. The said learned counsel for the complainant further advanced his arguments by saying that the complainant was served with notice on 30.06.2008 itself for removal from chit transaction. But whereas the opposite party paid on 18.02.2009 by way of cheque of Rs.33,904/- with delay of nearly 7 ½ months. Thus he was deprived of the interest at 12% on said accumulation. Besides, the opposite party wrongly interpreted that the subscriber is liable to pay 5% of chit value that is Rs.50,000/-. The contention of the complainant is that it is not chit value but it is only from the contribution made by him towards chit transaction at each installment. It is also clearly stated in the bye-laws under the rights of foreman clause 3(c) which reads as follows:

Clause 3(c) : The foreman is entitled to the commission at 5% on chit amount for each installment.. 3(d) : The foreman shall be entitled to receive and realize all contributions from the subscribers and to pay prize amount to the prized subscriber and to distribute dividend amount to all the subscribers.

In this connection the complainant submitted that he was not paid any dividend for the months of May and September, 2007 and he paid full installments amount of Rs.25,000/-. Further the deduction of 5% from the chit amount that is Rs.50,000/- is not correct according to the bye-laws. It is nothing but misleading the subscribers by incorrect interpretation taking advantages of clauses in the agreement. Hence, the complainant submits earnestly that the Hon’ble Forum has duty to curb the tendency of cheating the subscribers by wrong interpretation of the chit agreement. According to the complainant, he is liable to pay 5% of the commission towards contribution made by him in each installment which comes to Rs.2,14,800/- x 5% equivalent to Rs.10,740/- but not Rs.50,000/- as per the version of the opposite party. Therefore the complainant is entitled still to be paid of Rs.39,860/- as per particulars noted here under:

Total amount subscribed : Rs.2,14,800/-

Less 5% : Rs. 10,740/-

Balance : Rs.2,04,060/-

Less trade loan due amount : Rs.1,30,296/-

Balance : Rs. 73,764/-

Less paid by way of cheque : Rs. 33,904/-

Net amount yet to be paid : Rs. 39,860/-

(b) In response, the learned counsel for the opposite party Sri. D. Jayachandra has also vehemently argued that the complainant has borrowed a trade loan of Rs.2,00,000/- on 29.11.2007 from Sriram City Union Finance Limited and agreed to repay the same at the rate of Rs.10,733/- per month and accordingly paid 14 installments and thereafter committed default of repayment of the loan amount and there was a due of Rs.1,30,296/- as on 25.02.2009 and it is also admitted by the complainant. He was also further argued that the complainant has committed default in the non prized chit bearing No.SKY 01 ticket No.3,i.e., the present chit transaction under complaint. The complainant executed the chit agreement on 22.05.2007 and the said chit agreement is executed in duplicate and at the time of joining of the chit the complainant was furnished with the copy of the chit agreement, byelaws of the chit. As per the Chit Fund Act the chit is governed by a contract between the foreman and the subscriber. Here, the complainant is a subscriber and the opposite party is a foreman and they both entered into an agreement, i.e, chit agreement. He was also further advanced his arguments by saying that as per the terms and conditions of the chit agreement and byelaws of the said chit, when

A subscriber commits default for consecutive period of three months he is liable to be removed from the chit series and accordingly a notice was served on the complainant on 30.06.2008 by stating that he has paid a sum of Rs.2,14,200/- towards the chit and out of that as per the chit agreement terms and condition No.15(d) a subscriber removed from any chit before termination for any reason he is entitled for a refund of only the net amount of the subscription deposited by him less 5% of the chit amount towards damages for breach of contract and the refund will be made after the substituted subscriber draws the prized amount or at the closure of the chit whichever occurs first and as per this agreement the chit amount is Rs.10,00,000/- and the 5% of which comes to Rs.50,000/- and the same is liable to be deducted towards the damages for the breach of contract and accordingly the said sum along with a sum of Rs.20/- towards the incidental charges was deducted and the complainant is entitled to refund a sum of Rs.1,64,180/-. At that juncture the complainant came forward and submitted a letter to the opposite party stating he is liable to pay the balance amount in the trade loan to Shriram City Union Finance Limited and submitted a letter requesting to adjust the said sum of Rs.1,30,296/- from and out of Rs.1,64,180/- and there remains an amount of Rs.33,904/- liable to be refunded to the complainant. Accordingly a cheque No.468550 for a sum of Rs.1,30,296/- was issued to Shriram City Union Finance Limited and another cheque No.468549 is issued to the complainant on 18.02.2009 itself for the said sum of Rs.33,904/- and he has received the cheque and encashed the same as full and final settlement and executed necessary payment vouchers in favour of the complainant. That the complainant has removed from the chit on 07.11.2008 by following the procedure in pursuance of the provisions of the Chit Fund Act, the chit agreement and byelaws of the said series. He also asserted that as per the provisions of Section 23 of A.P. Chit Fund Act and clause 14(d) of Chit Fund Agreement executed by the complainant, the complainant is entitled only to the amount after deducting 5% damages on the chit amount. As per the letter executed by the complainant that he has got knowledge about the 5% of the chit amount of the deduction and he himself stated in his letter that after deducting the damages as per the terms and conditions he may be paid the balance, accordingly he was paid. The allegations with regard to the approaching of the complainant and demanding for Rs.50,000/- and misbehaviour, threatening are all invented for the purpose of the complaint and the opposite party is always maintaining good relationship and decorum with the subscribers including the complainant. There are no merits in the complaint and hence it is a fit case to be dismissed with exemplary costs.

(c ) Forum’s findings and observations

(i) We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. The contention of the said learned counsel for the complainant is that as per Ex.A1 i.e., pass book, the total amount paid to the opposite party comes to the figure of Rs.2,14,800/- and it is admitted by the opposite party also. The only point for our determination is that whether the foreman representing the opposite party is entitled to deduct 5% commission for the chit value of Rs.10,00,000/- or the plaintiff is entitled for a refund of only the net amount of subscriptions deposited by him less 5% of chit amount towards damages for breach of contract. Ex.B1 is the chit agreement. The execution of the chit agreement between foreman and the subscriber / complaint subject to terms and conditions and privileges are go to show that repayment of contribution amount to the complainant to chit on the termination of the chit to non-prized and unpaid prized subscriber and relevant clause 15(d) is opt to mention here that as it reads as follows: a subscriber removed from any chit before termination for any reason he is entitled for a refund of only the net amount of the subscription deposited by him less 5% of the chit amount towards damages for breach of contract and the refund will be made after the substituted subscriber draws the prized amount or at the closure of the chit whichever occurs first.

(ii) At the same time, bye-laws of the opposite party is referring the rights of the foreman under 3(d) has categorically stated that rate of commission of foreman is that he is entitled to a commission at 5% on the chit amount for each installment. By reading together of these two clauses i.e., 15(d) of chit agreement (Ex.B4) and bye-laws (Ex.B5) of the opposite party, the interpretation is that foreman is entitled to a commission at 5% on the net amount of subscriptions deposited by the complainant / subscriber and not whole chit amount of Rs.10,00,000/- is not the basis for calculation, taking into consideration of it, it can be said that deduction of 5% commission for the chit value of Rs.10,00,000/- i.e., Rs.50,000/- by the opposite party, is not at all correct and it is totally unjustified. The correct amount of Rs.10,470/- is proper and justified but not Rs.50,000/- as alleged by the said learned counsel for the opposite party. The opposite party has miserably failed in appreciating the contents in Ex.B1 and Ex.B5. The action of the opposite party is against law and not permissible under law. It is also against the principles of Natural Justice. It is clearly amounts to enrichment at the cost of others and nothing else. It is against the principles of Equity. So, it is a clear case of deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party towards the complainant. The complainant is entitled to get refund of only the net amount of subscriptions deposited by him with the opposite party. He is liable to pay 5% damages towards chit subscriptions deposited by him for breach of contract of his chit transaction. He is sufficiently penalized for his default by imposing Rs.10,740/- as fine i.e., damages (5%). He cannot be over burdened beyond that amount. Law will not permit to do so. In calculating of Rs.50,000/- as damages, i.e.,5% of whole chit amount of Rs.10,00,000/- is absolutely arbitrary and illegal on the part of the opposite party towards the complainant. We find substance in the submissions of the learned counsel for the complainant. He proved his case by showing all the relevant documents. Chit Fund Act and chit fund cases fall within the jurisdiction of the Consumer For a. This Consumer Forum is entitled to resolve chit fund dispute case between the parties and the position of law is very clear in view of the National Commission decision in the case of Kovilakam Chits and Financial Service ltd., Vs. K.L. Benny which was reported in II (2003) CPJ 87 (NC). This point is answered in favour of the complainant.

9. Point No.2:- In view of the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above in point No.1, after scanning entire documentary evidence on both the sides, it can be said that the opposite party misunderstood the meaning of the terms and conditions of the chit agreement and also bye-laws and wrongly interpreted the relevant portion of the matter relating to 5% damages deductable from net chit subscriptions deposited by the complainant / subscriber in case of breach of contract of chit transactions and instead calculated whole chit amount of Rs.10,00,000/- for arriving the figure of Rs.50,000/- as 5% damages. So, the complainant is entitled to claim refund of the amount of Rs.39,860/- from the opposite party. This point is answered accordingly.

10. Point No.3:- In the result, the complaint of the complainant is allowed in part directing the opposite party to refund the amount of Rs.39.860/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint i.e, 14.09.2009 till the date of realization and also to pay Rs.1,500/- towards the costs of the complaint to the complainant within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of order.

Typed to dictation by the stenographer, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum this the 26th day of November, 2009.

C.C.NO. 24 Of 2009

Between:-
C. Prabhakar S/o Rangaiah, age: 56 years, Occ: Employee working as Traffic Inspector, APSRTC, Nagarkurnool Depot, R/o Nagarkurnool, Mahabubnagar.

… Complainant
And

1. The Manager, M/s Shreeram Chits Private Limited, 1-5-35, 1st Floor, New

Town, Mahabubnagar.

2. The Divisional Manager, Shreeram Chits Private Limited,1-5-35, 1st Floor,

New Town, Mahabubnagar.

3. The General Manager, Shreeram Chits Private Limited, 3-6-478, Amand

Estate, Liberty, Himayatnagar, Hyderabad.

4. The Deputy General Manager, Shreeram Chits Private Limited, U corn

Plaza, 4th Home, Kurnool Town.
… Opposite Parties

This C.C. coming on before us for final hearing on 04-01-2010 in the presence of Sri M. Madhusudhan Rao, Advocate, Mahabubnagar for the complainant and Sri S. Malla Reddy, Advocate, Mahabubnagar for the opposite parties and having stoodover for consideration till this day, this Forum delivered the following:

O R D E R

(Sri P. Sridhara Rao, President)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint U/s 12 of C.P. Act, 1986 with a prayer to summon the opposite parties along with the relevant records which are in their custody in respect of the disputes between him and the opposite parties and pass orders for refund of installment amount so paid by him with interest @ 24% p.a. from the date of first installment till the realization of the said amount besides a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards damages for the breach of promise by the opposite parties and also costs of the complaint.



2. The averments of the complaint in brief are that the complainant joined as a member in the chit fund company being run by the opposite party No.1 vide membership No.67006/A8 and agreed to deposit an amount of Rs.10,000/- per month for the total chit amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and from the date of his joining as the member of the chit he was paying the installments to the opposite parties regularly under the valid receipt issued by the opposite parties. While so in the month of August, 2008 the complainant became successful bidder of the chit amount and thereupon the opposite party No.1 accordingly informed the same to the complainant by requesting him to furnish security to the opposite parties for the release of the amount of Rs.5,00,000/-. When the complainant approached the opposite parties for payment of installments amount for the months of September and October, 2008, the opposite parties have refused to receive the same on the ground that because the complainant is a successful bidder he need not pay the installments since they are prepared to deduct the same from the chit amount while making payment. Subsequently, the complainant has furnished necessary security by handing over the title deed of the immovable properties to the opposite parties and put his signatures wherever they required for completing the formalities. It is further averred that inspite of his approach for several times, the opposite party No.1 started harassing the complainant saying that his property should be mortgaged by registration and putting various conditions which are abnormal and untenable under the law. Thereupon the complainant got issued legal notice to the opposite parties demanding to pay the chit amount and tendered the receipt for the title deeds which were furnished by him. But the opposite parties have deliberately failed to comply with the notice and not chosen to give any reply to him. Under the said circumstances and having no alternative the complainant is constrained to file the present complaint. Thus the present complaint is filed for the aforesaid reliefs.



3. The opposite party No.1 filed counter admitting the case of the complainant to the extent of his joining as member and becoming member in the chit in question and becoming successful bidder in the auction conducted in the month of August, 2008 and denied the other averments of the complaint contending that the complainant himself has not turned up to fulfill the mortgage conditions, that in fact the properties covered under the title deed produced by the complainant are not belonging to him, that whenever the complainant approached the company this opposite party requested him to get his son on whose name the property is standing for fulfilling the mortgage obligations, but he never turned up with his son, but inspite of it the employee of the company approached and requested the son of the complainant to come to the company office and fulfill the mortgage obligations, but his son was also not cooperative on the ground that he is not interested to mortgage his property as surety, and that to the legal notice got issued by the complainant, this opposite party issued suitable reply to the complainant. Later on as per the Chit Fund Act and the rules framed there under this opposite party deposited the chit price amount of the complainant in the account of the company so as to enable the complainant to claim the same after furnishing surety, as such there is no deficiency on the part of opposite party in rendering services to the complainant and thus the complaint is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs.

4. The opposite party Nos.2 to 4 filed a memo adopting the counter filed by the opposite party No.1.

5. Thereafter, the complainant did not choose to file any chief affidavit in proof of his claim but however the copies of the documents such as pass book issued by the opposite party with reference to the chit in question, receipts showing the payments of installments made by the complainant to the opposite parties, legal notice got issued to the opposite parties, their acknowledgements etc., enclosed to the complaint are marked as Exs.A-1 to A-6 by this Forum for considering the reliefs sought by the complainant on merits. Later on in support of their contentions the opposite party No.1 got filed chief affidavit through its Manager on its behalf and on behalf of other opposite parties i.e., opposite party Nos.2 to 4 with the same contentions as mentioned in their counter and got marked the documents such as agreement of chit, office copy of the reply notice got issued by him and also the reminder to the complainant requesting him to comply the terms and conditions to draw the price amount etc., as Exs.B-1 to B-3.

6. Now the points for determination are:

1. Whether the complainant has proved his claim with regard to

rendering of service to him by the opposite parties as alleged by him?


2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought by him?

3. To what extent?

7. Point Nos.1 and 2:- As per the averments of the complaint and as per the counter and the chief affidavit filed on behalf of the opposite parties, there is no dispute in the matter with regard to the complainant joined as subscriber of the chit in question and had become successful bidder in the auction conducted by the opposite parties in the month of August, 2008. From that stage onwards the present dispute arose between the complainant and the opposite parties.



As per the complaint allegations of the complainant the contention of the complainant is that inspite of his furnishing necessary sureties and depositing of title deed, the opposite parties did not pay him the price amount and they have not even accepted the monthly installments amount for the months of September and October, 2008 when he went to the office of opposite parties for payment. It is the further allegation of the complainant that inspite of his issuing legal notice also demanding the opposite parties for payment of the price amount to him, the opposite parties not only failed to pay the amount but also failed to give any reply even and therefore he is entitled to the reliefs sought by him as mentioned in his complaint. It is necessary to mention here that the opposite parties after filing their counter, the complainant did not choose to file any proof affidavit in support of the allegations leveled by him against the opposite parties even to consider the documents Exs.A-1 to A-6 filed by him. On the other hand, the opposite parties in fact filed proof affidavit supporting their contentions and got marked Exs.B-1 to B-3. As stated above, it is the contention of the complainant that inspite of his furnishing sufficient security and depositing of title deeds and even after issuing a legal notice to the opposite parties demanding for payment of the price amount, the opposite parties have not only failed to refund the price amount, but also failed to give even any reply. If the same is established by the complainant then it can come to a conclusion that there is a deficiency in rendering service to the complainant by the opposite parties. But a perusal of the documents Exs.B-1 to B-3 clearly goes to show that on receipt of the legal notice got issued by the complainant the opposite parties issued a suitable reply notice to the complainant as under Ex.B-2 informing the complainant to comply the agreement of the chit as under Ex.B-1 by the complainant by furnishing sufficient security. A further perusal of Ex.B-3 got marked by the opposite parties also clearly establishes that the opposite parties issued a reminder to the complainant for compliance of the terms and conditions of the agreement of chit to draw price money. Inspite of it there is no material placed on record by the complainant that he had fulfilled all the requirements of the chit agreement to draw the price money. The contentions of the opposite parties and so also the recitals of Exs.B-2 and B-3 are not even challenged by the complainant. So that itself shows that the complainant had not approached this Forum with clean hands and furthermore he failed to establish deficiency in rendering service to him by the opposite parties. Under the said circumstances, it can clearly be said that the complainant failed to establish his claim with regard to rendering of service to him by the opposite parties. In other words, it can clearly be said that this is the case where the opposite parties themselves established that there is no deficiency of service on their part. In view of the reasons stated above we hold that because the complainant failed to prove his claim with regard to rendering of service to him by the opposite parties the complainant is not entitled for the reliefs sought by him and thus the complaint is liable to be dismissed. Both the points are answered accordingly.

8. In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No order as to the costs.

C.C.No.90/2008

Ramaswamy Prasuna, W/o.Venkata Ramana,

Hindu, Aged 35 years, R/o.M.V. Nagar, Gudur,

Nellore District. ..… Complainant

Vs.
1.
The Branch Manager, Shriram Chits Private Limited,

Kesava Buildings, Near Ongole Bus Stand, Main Road,

Kavali, Nellore District.



2.


The Administration Manager, Shriram Chits Private Limited,

3-6-478, 3rd floor, Anend Estates, Liberty Road,

Himayath Nagar, Hyderabad. ..…Opposite parties







This complaint coming on 23-12-2009 and 01-01-2010 before us for hearing in the presence of Sri Eduru Bhaskaraiah, advocate for the complainant and Sri N. Sudheer Reddy, advocate for the opposite parties 1 and 2 and having been stood over for consideration till this day and this Forum made the following:



ORDER

(ORDER BY Smt.B. KARUNAKUMARI, MEMBER)



This complaint is filed by the complainant under Section-12 of Consumer Protection Act seeking for direction to the opposite parties to pay her Rs.10,316/- alongwith interest at 24% p.a. from 06-06-2007, pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- and costs.



2. The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows:



The complainant joined as a member in the chit bearing No.KNHL-01 in the month of March, 2004 and the value of the chit was Rs.1,50,000/-. The complainant has to pay the subscription at the rate of Rs.3,000/- p.m. for 50 months. She became a successful bidder in the auction held in the month of October, 2004 and she received the prize amount after furnishing sureties and also producing two LIC bonds in the name of her husband. She paid the instalments regularly up to 45th instalment and she is due 5 instalments. As she failed to pay the instalments, the opposite party No.1 issud notice dated 28-11-2007 calling upon her to pay the balance instalments. After receiving the notice she paid the remaining 5 instalments on 31-12-2007. After paying the remaining instalments she demanded the opposite parties to return the insurance policy bonds. The opposite parties returned one bond but they did not return the another bond. So she gave legal notice dated 28-05-2008 to the opposite party No.1 and the opposite party No.1 received notice but failed to comply with her demand. The opposite party No.1 encashed the other bond and received Rs.10,316/- on 06-06-2007. Eventhough the opposite pasty No.1 encashed the LIC bond, he received the remaining 5 instalments amount from her. Failure to pay the amount received by encashing LIC bond amounts to deficiency in service. Hence the complaint.



3. The opposite parties filed the counter stating in brief as follows:



They admitted the allegations with regard to the complainant joining as a member in the chit run by them and the value of the chit and period of the chit and also the complainant becoming a successful bidder in the auction held in the month of October, 2004 and the payment of prize amount. They also admitted the allegations with regard to the furnishing of sureties and also producing two LIC bonds standing in the name of the husband of the complainant. They also admitted the payment of instalments by the complainant and returning of one LIC bond. The opposite parties stated that after receiving the last 5 instalments from the complainant they should have returned the amount received by encashing the LIC bond but instead of returning the amount they adjusted that amount to another chit. They further stated that they encashed the LIC bond on the request of the complainant as she failed to pay the last 5 instalments and therefore she cannot allege any deficiency in their service. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.





4. The points for consideration are:

1) Whether there is deficiency in the service of the opposite parties?

2) Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs sought for?

3) To what relief is the complainant entitled?



5. The complainant filed her affidavit and produced the documents, which are marked as Exs.A1 to A4. The opposite parties filed the affidavit of their advocate and produced the documents which are marked as Exs.B1 to B7. The affidavit filed on behalf of opposite parties cannot be treated as evidence affidavit and therefore the documents produced by the opposite parties cannot be admitted in the evidence.



6. POINT No.1 : The admitted facts are that the complainant became a member of the chit run by the opposite parties and the value of the chit was Rs.1,50,000/- and the period of the chit was 50 months and that the complainant has to subscribe Rs.3,000/- p.m. The complainant became the successful bidder in the auction held in the month of October, 2004 and she received the prize amount after furnishing sureties and also producing the two LIC bonds standing in the name of her husband. She paid the instalments i.e., subscription regularly upto 45th instalment and thereafter she failed to pay the remaining 5 instalments. She paid the remaining 5 instlaments after receiving the notice from the opposite party No.1 and thereafter the opposite party No.1 returned one LIC bond and failed to return another LIC bond. The opposite party No.1 encashed the other LIC bond and received Rs.10,316/- on 06-06-2007. It is admitted by the opposite parties that after receiving the balance of 5 instalments from the complainant they adjusted the amount received by encashing the LIC bond to the other chit. The opposite parties were not given any permission or authority by the complainant to adjust that amount to the another chit. It is the duty of the opposite parties to return the amount received under the LIC bond to the complainant after receiving the remaining instalments from her. In the written arguments filed by the learned counsel for the opposite parties it is stated that the opposite parties are willing to deposit the amount within the time fixed by this Forum. Therefore it is clearly proved that the opposite parties failed to pay the amount received by encashing the LIC bond after receiving the entire balance due from the complainant. Therefore we are of the view that there is deficiency in the service of the opposite parties.



7. POINT No.2: In view of our discussion on point No.1, we hold that the opposite parties are liable to pay Rs.10,316/- which was received issued by them by encashing the LIC bond standing in the name of the husband of the complainant. The complainant paid all the instalments on 31-12-2007. The complainant issued legal notice demanding the return of a bond on 28-05-2008. The opposite parties should have returned the amount immediately after receiving the entire balance amount due from the complainant. Therefore we are of the view that the opposite parties are liable to pay interest from 01-01-2008 @ 12% p.a. Since the complainant committed default in payment of instalment, we are of the view that she is not entitled to claim any compensation or damages. Hence we answer this point accordingly.


8. TO WHAT RELIEF: IN THE RESULT, the complaint is partly allowed directing the opposite parties to pay to the complainant Rs.10,316/- (Rupees ten thousand three hundred and sixteen only) alongwith interest at 12% p.a. from 01-01-2008 and also Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) towards costs within 30 days from the date of communication of this order.

Sir

My wife Smt Pushpa Latha S got a bid in 5,00,000/- (Chit NO:1018/75011/15) in the m/o Jan'11 at Malleswaram Branch(Bangalore) on 6/1/11 and further requested to keep the amount in FD in the name of her Mother in Law(my mother) for 36 months for 4,00,000/-(remaining amount of Rs.33000/-to equal 4 Lakhs deposited on 12/2/11).As per Company policy bidded amount shuould be returned before 45 days (maximum.Actually 30 days) from the date of chit bidding.But,even after completion of more than 75,My Mother has not yet received zerox copy of FD bond.(As intimated Original will be kept with branch till competion of Chit as surity).Now pl confirm

a) who is responsible for this lapse?
b) I want either Bond from the back date or Interest as applicable as per RBI policy for 30 days for 4 Lacs.

I hope my request will be considered & action will be taken from your end and intimated to my mail ID.(y wife has no Mail ID,hence sending thru my ID)

Thanks & Regards

H V Subramhanya
Ex ASST Commandant/BSF
Email:hvsubbu@yahoo.in
Mob: 8123493150