(Appeal against the order dated 09.09.2009 passed by District Forum – Central, in complaint case no.1485/1999)
Poma Chits Pvt. Ltd.

C-4 C/118, Janakpuri,

New Delhi-11058.

Through its

Managing Director

Mr. Ram Prakash Gulati,

Managing Director of

Poma Chits Pvt. Ltd.,

C-4 C /118, Janakpuri,

New Delhi-11058

…..Appellants/OP

through

Sh. R.P. Gupta, Advocate

VS

Mr. P.C. Tandon,

G-215, Vikas Puri,

New Delhi-110018.

……Respondent/complainant

CORAM

Justice Barkat Ali Zaidi, President.

M.L. Sahni, Member

1. Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the

judgment?

2. To be referred to the reporter or not?
M.L. SAHNI, MEMBER
1. The Opposite Party (hereinafter referred to as the Appellant) has filed this appeal challenging the order dated 9.9.2009 of the District Forum, Kashmere Gate, Delhi , whereby they have been directed to pay to the Respondent (complainant before the District Forum) a sum of Rs. 72,500/- with compound interest (quarterly rest) @ 9% p.a. with effect from 11.02.1999 till realization and Rs. 20,000/- as compensation and Rs. 5,000/- as cost of litigation.

2. Facts of the case, precisely state, are that the Respondent became member of the Chit being operated by the Appellant in Group PC-14 for Rs. 75,000/- to be contributed @ Rs. 2,500/- per month. A sum of Rs. 72,500/-was deposited in 29 installments. The complainant/respondent had been participating in the Bid all the time and the last installment i.e. 30th was not paid as the amount finally was to be received by the complainant/respondent. The Respondent/ complainant prayed that he is entitled to recover Rs. 72,500/- alongwith intrest @ 18% p.a. and cost and compensation.

3. Appellant’s case is that apart from the chit fund transaction the Appellants and the respondent had other business transactions, also. The respondent was in sale purchase business of the Photocopy machines in the name and style of M/s Vintec Office Systems having its office at 4, Community Centre, Naraina, Phase-I (Opposite to Payal Cinema), New Delhi-110028 and he had sold a photo-copy machine to the Appellant for Rs. 70,050/-. One smaller machine was also given by the appellant to the respondent for sale which he (the respondent ) sold for Rs. 45,000/- and retained the amount for adjustment at a later stage. It is further pleaded by the Appellants that as per Account statement, a sum of Rs. 22,880/- was payable to the Respondent , who claimed Rs. 51,500/- after taking into consideration the amount payable by him to the Appellant.

4. The Respondent filed consumer complaint claiming payment of Chit Fund amount of Rs. 72,500/- in 1996, which was decided ex -parte against the Appellant who approached the State Commission. The case was remanded by the Commission for deciding the complaint afresh , whereupon the impugned order has been passed, on 09.09.2009.

5. We have heard the Appellant No. 2 in person , who is the Managing Director of Appellant No. 1 . We have also perused the impugned order carefully. The grounds of the appeal have also been thoughtfully considered.

6. The Ld. District Forum has found contradiction in the defence version set-up by the Appellants and observed that ,

“Appellants cannot succeed merely on the basis of the report of the hand writing expert. The facts pleaded by the OPs/Appellant do not support the report of the hand writing expert and figure mentioned on the page. There is nothing on the record to suggest that the parties arrived at any settlement on the basis of written entries on the sheet. The OPs have not led any evidence of the sale of any Photostat machine to the complainant. The details of the sale of such machine, have not been brought on record. The record attached with the additional affidavit of Shri R.P. Gulati, does not suggest particular entry for the sale of Photostat machine to the complainant. It is not the case of the OPs that the Photostat machine was sold to the complainant after filing the first reply to the complainant. Otherwise, it is highly improbable that OPs will supply the Photostat machine to the complainant without receiving the payment during the course of their litigation. If the machine would have been supplied before filing the first reply to the complaint then it would have been mentioned in the reply itself. The OPs merely mentioned that they were to pay the sum of Rs. 1050/- only. However, in the second reply, the amount payable by the OPs to the complainant, rose to Rs. 35,000/-. It was so without selling the Photostat machine to the complainant during the period of filing first reply and second reply. The OPs have failed to explain the same”.



7. We fully agree with the reasoning given by the Ld. District Forum, while coming to the conclusion that the Appellants could not prove their defence in this case and hence the complaint merited allowance. Impugned order needs no interference.

8. The appeal does not deserve admission. Hence it is dismissed in limine .

9. FDR / Bank guarantee, if any, furnished by the appellant be returned to the appellant forthwith after completion of due formalities.

10. A copy of this order as per statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum and , thereafter , the file be consigned to Record Room.