Sri Bramramba Textiles,
Rep. by its Proprietrix,
Smt. G.Sarada W/o. G.Eswaraiah,
R/76, Ramachandrapuram,
Hyderabad. ……Complainant

And

1. M/s. Sri Ram Chits Limited,
204, Rahamath Complex,
Ameerpet, Hyderabad 16,
Rep. by its Authorized Signatory,
2. M/s. Sri Ram Chits Limited,
204, Rahamath Complex,
Ameerpet, Hyderabad 16,
Rep.by its Branch Manager. ….. Opposite Parties



O R D E R



1. This is a Complaint filed by the Complainant under section 12 of C.P. Act, 1986, seeking a direction against opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.1,03,000/- with interest at 12% p.a. from date of transfer of the chit i.e., 31-05-2003 till the date of realization, for payment of Rs.50,000/- and costs.



2. The case of the complainant as set out in the complaint in brief is that she joined the chit of opposite parties, the value of which was Rs.5,00,000/- payable at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per month towards monthly subscription for a period of 50 months, which commenced from October, 2001.

She paid a sum of Rs.1,03,000/- till December, 2002. However, she requested the opposite party to refund the amount already paid by way of transferring the chit amount to a 3rd party. Accordingly the opposite parties transferred the chit to Chaitanya Auto Finance on 31-05-2003 but they did not refund the amount. The opposite parties adjusted the said amount to the chit No.QLS 4/36, which is the subject matter of a OS.No.8197 of 2004. In fact, they did not adjust to that account also. Inspite of a legal notice dated 03-07-2007, they did not refund the amount. Hence the complaint.



3. The opposite parties filed a common counter. It is pleaded that the complaint is barred by limitation. It is further pleaded that the complainant had paid only Rs.87,050/- towards the said chit but not Rs.1,03,000/-. However, on 27-05-2003 the complainant approached the opposite parties and submitted a letter to cancel her chit and to adjust the amount paid by her to the other chits held by her and one V.Satyanarayana. As per her written request, the opposite party adjusted the amounts to the chit Nos.QLS 4/36 of Ameerpet Branch and GLK 8/21 of Chandanagar branch belonging to V.Satyanarayana.

The opposite parties are entitled to deduct a sum of Rs.25,000/- being the 5% of the commission on the total chit value as per the terms and agreement by the complainant. After adjusting the said commission amount of Rs.25,000/-, the amount available in respect of the chit of the complainant was Rs.62,050/-. The opposite parties adjusted Rs.43,838/- towards the chit QLS 4/36 ON 30-06-2003 AND Rs.18,212/- towards the chit GLK 8/21 on 29-06-2003. Thus the entire amount paid by the complainant in respect of chit ALC 4/32 was adjusted as per her written request. She suppressed the facts deliberately and filed this false complaint.


4. It is further pleaded that the opposite parties filed OS 8197 of 2004 after adjusting the amount of Rs.43,838/- and also Rs.18,212/-. They already told the complainant about the adjustments.


5. The points that arise for consideration are:-

1. Whether the claim is not barred by limitation.
2. Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties? And if so, whether the complainant is entitled for the amounts claimed?
3. To what relief?


6. To substantiate her case, the complainant has chosen to file her evidence affidavit and relied on Exs.A1 and A2. On the other hand, the opposite parties also filed the evidence affidavit and relied on Exs.B1 to B4. The complainant filed a memo to treat her evidence affidavit and documents as her written arguments. The opposite parties filed written arguments.



7. Point No.1:- Even according to the complainant, she paid the last chit instalment in the month of Dec.2002. Of course Ex.A1 also discloses the same. The un disputed Ex.B1 letter was addressed by the complainant to the opposite parties on 27-05-2003 requesting to adjust her chit amount pertaining to ALC 4/32 to some other accounts. As per 24 A of C.P. Act the period of limitation is 2 years from the date of which the cause of action would arise to the complainant.

The complainant has not filed any application under Section – 24 A(2) for condoning the delay in filing the complaint so, as rightly contended on behalf of the opposite parties, the complainant should have filed the complaint within 2 years from her last payment in Dec.2002 or at the most within 2 years from her Ex.B1 letter dated 27-05-2003. She filed this complaint in the month of March, 2008 without seeking leave of the Forum regarding the delay. So, we opine that this case is barred by limitation.



8. Point No.II :- As rightly contended on behalf of the opposite parties the complainant suppressed Ex.B1 letter addressed by her requesting the opposite parties to adjust her chit amount ALC 4/32 to QLC 4/36, GLK 8/26, GLK 9/37 AND GLK 8/21. So, it is clear that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands. The opposite parties filed Exs.B2 to B4 account sheets which disclose the adjustments made by the opposite parties. There is no denial of fact that the opposite parties would be collecting 5% towards the Foreman Commission. According to the opposite parties they had filed OS 8197/04 only after adjustment of the amount paid by the complainant.


9. Thus the complainant could not make out a case to enable this Forum to pass any orders in her favour. She failed to make out that there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. So, she is not entitled for any amount much less the one asked in the complaint.