IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, TTAYAM
Dated, the 25th day of May, 2022.
Present: Sri. Manulal V.S. President
Smt. Bindhu R. Member
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member
C C No. 148/2018 (Filed on 19-07-2018)
Petitioner : O.P. Bhaskaran,
Peedikatharayil House,
Nerekadav, Udayanapuram P.O.
Vaikom, Kottayam – 686143
Vs.
Opposite parties : 1) N.C. Sugunan,
Nedumangalam House,
Nerekadav, Udayanapuram,
Vaikom, Kottayam - 686143
(Adv. K.M. George)
O R D E R
Smt. Bindhu R. Member
The case is filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
The gist of the complaint is that the complainant enrolled his daughter for a chit with the Karunya Chitties Private Limited conducted by the opposite party for a chit amount of Rs.50,000/- payable in 25 equal instalments on 07-02-2013. It was the complainant who paid the entire amount for his daughter. The complainant had paid 19 instalments correctly and on 02-06-2015 paid Rs.1,000/- towards the 20th instalment, later when he went to the company for the balance payment, it was known that the said chit company was stopped its activities. Thereafter, the complainant had to undergo heart surgery and some other treatments for 2 years. Even after repeated demands, the opposite parties did not care to pay the amount paid by the complainant. As the chit was stopped by the opposite party, he is bound to return the money paid by the complainant. Hence this complaint is filed for return of money and compensation.
The opposite party appeared on receipt of notice through a counsel and submitted his version contending that the complainant has no consumer relation with the opposite party and so the complaint is not maintainable before the Commission. One DeepaShaji has enrolled for a chit with the Karunya chit fund. All the allegations against the opposite party regarding the commencement date and the amount of the chit and are not correct. There was no incident which lead to the non-functioning of the chit fund as alleged. The chital Deepa Shaji made default in payment and hence the said chit was not listed. The said Deepa Shaji has paid only Rs.32,100/- and not Rs.40,000/- as alleged. The said Deepa Shaji defaulted the payments and informed that she was unable to pay the balance amount. So she demanded the paid amount after deducting the dues and commission. But as this demand was against the conditions of the chit, the opposite party did not close the chit and the complainant came to the office of the opposite party along with his henchmen. In a mediation, the opposite party deposited Rs.14,800/- vide cheque No.157071 in the District Co-operative Bank on 30-09-15 and Rs.14,000/- on 20-11-15. Now, the opposite party is only liable to pay Rs.800/- to the complainant regarding the disputed chit. The complainant has filed this complaint by concealing material fact to defraud this Commission.
The complainant filed proof affidavit along with one document, which is marked as Ext.A1. The opposite party did not adduce any evidence. The opposite party has filed IA 73/21 challenging the maintainability of the complaint. In the IA, the opposite party has stated that the closing date of the chit was 7-03-15/- and hence the complaint ought to have been filed before 07-03-2017. Thereafter, period of limitations started. The complaint was filed only on 16-07-2018. Hence the complaint is bad by limitation. Hence the complaint is not maintainable. The said IA was disposed off as to be considered along with the complaint on final hearing.
Considering the pleadings and evidence on record, we would frame the following points.
- Whether the complaint is maintainable or not?
- Whether the complainant has succeeded in establishing the deficiency of service on the part of service and if so, what are the reliefs?
Point No.1
Ext.A1 is the passbook of Deepa Shaji, who is the daughter of the complainant with the Karunya Chits Private Limited conducted by the opposite party. As per Ext.A1, it is seen that the said chit was commenced on 10-04-2012 and as per the version of the opposite party, date of closure of the chit was 07-03-15. As per Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (24) (A) states that Limitation period – (1) The District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen.
- Notwithstanding, anything contained in sub-section(1), a complaint may be entertained after the period specified in sub-section, (1) if the complainant satisfied the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, that he had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within such period.
Provided that no such complaint shall be entertained unless the National Commission, the State Commission or the District Forum, as the case may be, records its reasons for condoning such delay.
Here the complainant has not successfully explained the delay caused in filing the complaint. So, we find that the complaint is barred by limitation and hence dismissed.
Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 25th day of May, 2022
Smt. Bindhu R. Member Sd/-
Sri. Manulal V.S. President Sd/-
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member Sd/-
Appendix
Exhibits marked from the side of complainant
A1 – Passbook in the name of complainant
Exhibits marked from the side of opposite party
Nil
By Order
Assistant Registrar
