Karnataka

Bidar

CC/79/2014

TRIMBAKAPPA S/O MADAPPA MANGALURE MADNOORKAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

TH CHIEF MANAGER SRI RAM CHITS BIDAR - Opp.Party(s)

SANGAMESH PATIL

18 Aug 2016

ORDER

::BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

AT BIDAR::

 

 

                                                                                                          C.C.No. 79/2014

 

                                                                                             Date of filing : 06/09/2014

 

                                                                                          Date of disposal : 18/08/2016

 

 

P R E S E N T:-                    (1) Shri. Jagannath Prasad Udgata,

                                                                                         B.A., LL.B.

                                                                                                       President.

    

                                              (2) Shri. Shankrappa (Halipurgi),

                                                                                 B.A.LL.B.

                                                                                           Member.

 

                                   

 

                                               

COMPLAINANT/S:               Trimbakappa, s/o Madappa Mangalure Madnoorkar,               

                                         Age 63 years, R/o Bhalki,

                                           Tq.Bhalki,Dist.Bidar.

 

              

 

 

                                         (By Sri. Sangmesh N.Patil, Advocate )

 

 

                                                      VERSUS

 

OPPONENT/S   :-                 1.   The  Chief  Manager

            Sriram Chits (Karnataka) Pvt. Ltd.,

            Near old Bus stand, Bidar.

 

      2.   The Chief Manager,

            Sriram Chits ( Karnataka) Pvt. Ltd.,

            2559/1 Akshodaya, 1^st Floor, 10^th cross

            Wilson Garden, Bangalaore-27. 

           

 

 

 

                                            (O.P.No.1 By Smt. Padma M., Advocate)

                                                ( O.P.No.2 – Exparte )

 

 

::   J UD G M E N T  : :

 

 

 

By Shri. Jagannath Prasad Udgata, President.

 

              The complainant is before this Forum , filing complaint u/s. 12 of the C.P.Act. against the opponents.  The gist of the complaint is as follows:-

 

 

2.              That, originally his brother one Babu Rao was the Bid Chit holder under the opponents in respect of group no. 53509/25 & was paying the monthly chit amount of Rs. 2,500/- up to six instalments.  Unable to continue the chit, he requested the opponents to transfer the chit in the name of the complainant, which was accepted and the complainant entered into the foray.  The complainant continued to pay the regular instalments and on 27-07-2004, participating in the bid, received a sum of Rs. 84,810/- from the O.Ps.  At that time, as security, L.I.C. policy bearing no. 662045623 for a sum assured of Rs. 2,00,000/- obtained by the wife of complainant, Shankeramma was assigned in favour of opponents. ( The complainant describes it was pledging which is a miosnomer in view of the documents submitted).

 

3.              It is further say of the complainant that, he continued payment of chit amount @ Rs. 2,360/- to the opponent’s office at Bidar till the 36^th instalment.  Thereafter the opponents shifted their premises to some other undisclosed place and thereby the last four instalments, totally amounting to Rs.9,997/- could not be remitted by him, though he was ready for the payment.

 

4.            The complainant further avers that, on later enquiry he could come to know, the opponents have misutilised the assignment of L.I.C. policy no. 662045623 and without any intimation to him or his wife had obtained a loan of Rs. 61,500/- from the L.I.C. by pledging the bond aforesaid.  As he was only due to pay a sum of Rs.9,997/-, the opponents had received an extra sum of Rs. 51,503/- as on 03-10-2007 deceitfully, by pledging the assigned policy and have made an unlawful gain.  The complainant further avers that, he had sent letters to the opponents on 19-07-2013 and             07-08-2013 and both of them received stoic silence.  On 15-07-2014, a legal notice was sent to the opponents which was received by them on       19-07-2014 to which a reply was sent acknowledging the locus of the complainant as a bid-chit holder, further acknowledging the retention of a sum of Rs. 51,502/- for which the complainant claims interest @ 18% p.a., compensation towards mental torture, Business and agricultural loss, expenses from Bangalore to Bidar and approachment to Bidar office of the O.Ps.

 

5.             The complainant had filed 7(seven) documents along with the complaint and had later filed some documents on 12-04-2016 with a memo of calculation, clinching the issue.

 

6.           From the order sheet of the case, it is revealed that, as on             17-01-2015, the O.P.no.2 not appearing was placed exparte and the case was adjourned to 07-02-2015 for versions of O.P.no.1 on which date the versions not being filed, the case was posted for evidence of complainant.  After several adjournments on 24/07/2015, the complainant filed evidence affidavit without sufficient copies and the case was adjourned further to    22-09-2015.  On that day, the counsel for the O.P. was absent adjourning the case to 20-10-2015 enabling him to file evidence affidavit, on which date the evidence of O.Ps was taken as nil and complainant’s counsel was directed to file authenticated copies of documents by 26-11-2015, which was later complied.  On the next date i.e. 08-12-2015, a submission was made by the opponent no.1 that, it would settle the claim provided a time of fifteen days is granted.  Recording the submissions, time was granted up to 29-12-2015 and later 29-01-2016 on which day the O.P. submitted that, the cheque was sent to Sri.Vijayakumar, Advocate for the complainant issuing the legal notice and was refused, for which a direction was given to submit the cheque by 29-01-2016.

 

7.               On 09-02-2016, the counsel for the O.P. expressed readiness to defray the amount with 6% interest p.a. Complainant’s sides remaining absent time was granted time till 29-01-2016 to have the say of the complainant.  On the next date, i.e. 10-03-2016, submission was made by the O.P. to grant further time and on the same date of hearing on 10-03-2016, an official of O.P.no.1 by name Sri.Vaijinath, together with counsel appeared with chequeno.293583 dt.27-02-2016 for an amount of Rs. 72,360/- but the same was resisted by the complainant as inadequate.  The cheque was returned to the O.P. on his submission that, he would take up the matter with the head office for higher amounts.  The counsel for the complainant submitted to have filed authenticated documents and undertook to file detail memo of calculations by next date i.e. 30-03-2016.  The official of O.P. prayed time for instructions adjourning the case to 12-04-2016, on which date complainant’s counsel filed memo of calculations.  The case was posted to 12-04-2016 for objections to the memo of calculations and then to 19-05-2016.  Thereafter, the case was adjourned several times and on 25-06-2016, one Smt. Padma Maharaj, Advocate filed Vakalath to appear along with the counsel for the O.P. and Sri. S.N.P, counsel for the complainant filed written arguments.

 

8.               On the next date of hearing on 23-07-2016 time was granted till 03-08-2016 for filing of written arguments of O.P. and the same was complied with.

 

9.              Significantly, the O.P. has not filed versions in the case and has raised a point that, the encashment of the L.I.C. bond was in the year 2007 and hence the case is time barred.  It has been also high lighted that, the O.P. is liable to pay interest on the excess amount paripassu the interest rate of L.I.C. only and nothing more.  The complainant has filed series of documents (copies & original) considering the averments of both sides, the following points raise for our considerations:-

 

 

1.  Is  the case time barred as being canvassed by the opponent?
2. Does the complainant prove that, he is entitled for the relief(s) prayed for?

 

3. What order ?

 

 

 

 

10.           Our answers to the points stated above are as follows:-

               1. In the negative

               2. Partially in affirmative.

               3. As per the final order, for the following reasons:

 

                                                                                                       :: REASONS ::

 

11.       The averments of the complainant was nowhere seriously challenged by the opponents by abstaining from filing the versions.  The opponents, a public Limited Company has clandestinely shifted their office at Bidar and has never bothered to inform of such shifting to the individual contributor of the chit.  Going one step ahead, again without any valid information to the complainant or his wife, the L.I.C. bond holder, the policy offered as security was pledged and a loan of Rs. 61,500/- was raised by the opponent, when only due of  Rs. 9,997/- was to be received from the complainant.  This action stinks of mensrea  in the part of the opponents and  in our considered opinion, the act of the opponent is an offence of highest order U/s. 406 I.P.C. and pinnacle of unethical trade practice.    

 

12.          However, the acts being done clandestinely, the complainant could  come to know it only after the enquiry was made in the office of the L.I.C. during the year 2014 and promptly he has initiated legal action by issuing a notice.  Prior to that, the complainant claims without any supporting documents that, on 19-07-2013 and 07-08-2014 he had sent letters to the opponents.  The legal notice issued on 15-07-2014 not being acted upon, the complainant has approached this Forum on 01-09-2014.  As per the facts narrated and documents submitted, the cause of action of the case accrued in favour of the complainant on 15-07-2014 and hence the case is within time.  Therefore point no.1 is answered in negative.

 

13.           The complainant has claimed a lump sum compensation of       Rs. 4,64,502/- with 18% interest p.a., which in our opinion is quite bloated up.  The fact remains, as on 12-10-2007, the opponents had made a clandestine, undue gain of Rs. 51,502/- at the cost of the complainant and even on 10-03-2016 had come forward to pay a sum of Rs. 72,360/- based on some undisclosed pattern of calculation, which was not acceptable to the complainant.  Here is a clear cut admission of liability in the part of the opponents, not withstanding their later canvassing of time-barred factor.  On 30-03-2016, the official of the opponents had even agreed to interact with the head office for higher payment and thereafter never appeared in the Court to act upon his promise.  Wherefore, considering all aspects, we pass the following order answering point no.2 in affirmative partially.

 

ORDER

 

1.  The complaint is allowed in part.

 

2.  The opponents are directed to pay a sum of Rs.51,502/- together with an interest @ 12% p.a. calculated from 12-07-2007 till the date of realisation.
3. The opponents are to pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/- towards compensation.

 

4. Litigation amount of Rs.5,000/- further be paid by the Opponents

 

5. The complainant would be at liberty to prosecute the opponents for offence committed by them U/s. 406 I.P.C. if so advised.

           

 

             Four weeks time granted to comply this order.

 

 

( Typed to our dictation then corrected, signed by us and then pronounced in the open Forum on this 18^th day of  August-2016 )

 

 

                 Sd/-                                                                              Sd/-  

   Sri. Shankrappa H.                                             Sri. Jagannath Prasad                                   

Member.                                                                President.                                                           

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Documents produced by the complainant

1. Ex.P.1- Office copy of legal notice dt. 15-07-2014 with postal receipts and acknowledgement.
2. Ex.P.2-Letter of O.P. dt. 19-07-2014.
3. Ex.P.3- Letter of opponents to L.I.C. d.t29-01-2014 (copy).
4. Ex.P.4-Money receipt no.027247,dt.10-01-2007 issued by opponents.
5. Ex.P.5- Notice Chit of opponents.
6. Ex.P.6-Status report of L.I.C. policy no.662045623 after reassignment (computer generated).
7. Ex.P.7- Another status report of the above said policy.

 

 Document produced by the Opponent/s

 

                                     Nil   

 

 

                 Sd/-                                                                                 Sd/-  

   Sri. Shankrappa H.                                             Sri. Jagannath Prasad                                   

               Member.                                                                President.