Tamil Nadu
South Chennai
CC/3/2016
M/s.V.Sankareshwari - Complainant(s)
Versus
The General Manager, Sriram Chit Funds, - Opp.Party(s)
K.C.Kari Marx
12 Dec 2022
ORDER
Date of Complaint Filed : 20.10.2015
Date of Reservation : 16.11.2022
Date of Order : 12.12.2022
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
CHENNAI (SOUTH), CHENNAI-3.
PRESENT: TMT. B. JIJAA, M.L., : PRESIDENT
THIRU. T.R. SIVAKUMHAR, B.A., B.L., : MEMBER I
THIRU. S. NANDAGOPALAN., B.Sc., MBA., : MEMBER II
CONSUMER COMPLAINT No. 03/2016
MONDAY, THE 12th DAY OF DECEMBER 2022
Mrs. V.Sankareswari,
Wife of P.Venkatesh,
B10 A/2, Vilakku Veethi,
Neyveli, Cuddalore District. ... Complainant
..Vs..
1.The General Manager,
Sriram Chit Funds,
Greams road,
Chennai-600 006
2.The Branch Manager,
Sriram Chit Funds,
No.3/187, 1st floor,
Madipakkam Koot Road,
Madipakkam, Chennai-3.
3.G.Janaki,
Flat No.1.Haramba Flat,
No.8. Thangavelu Street,
Puzhuthivakkam, Chennai. ... Opposite Parties
******
Counsel for the Complainant : M/s. K.C. Karl Marx
Counsel for the 1st & 2nd Opposite Parties : M/s. K.V. Ananthakrushnan
Counsel for the 3rd Opposite Party : M/s N.Subramani
On perusal of records and upon hearing the oral arguments of the Counsel for the Complainant and the Counsel for the Opposite Parties 1 and 2, we delivered the following:
ORDER
Pronounced by the President Tmt. B. Jijaa, M.L.,
1. The Complainant has filed this complaint as against the Opposite Parties under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and prays to direct the Opposite Parties to return the maturity amount of Rs.5,00,000/- with interest @18% p.a from the period of maturity that is August 2013 which comes to Rs.1,95,000/- and to pay a compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- towards their act of wilful fraudulent act amounting to deficiency of service and to pay a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- for the mental agony and sufferings meted out by the Complainant and her family which comes to a total of Rs.12,95,000/-
2. The averments of Complaint in brief are as follows:-
The Complainant joined a chit with the 2nd Opposite Party, branch of the Sriram Chit Funds through the 3rd Opposite Party who is the agent, for a chit amount of Rs.5,00,000/- for a period of 40 months from May 2010 to 12 August 2013 at a monthly premium of Rs.12,500 and that she was allotted with the Chit No. 69001/15. She has been regularly paying the premium amount and on completion of maturity period, she sought for the matured amount in the Month of August 2013 with the 3rd Opposite Party and that the 3rd Opposite Party has asked the Complainant to approach the 2nd Opposite Party. As such the Complainant has approached the 2nd Opposite Party but the 2nd Opposite Party has told the Complainant to get the matured amount from the agent, the 3rd Opposite Party. The 2nd Opposite Party and the 3rd Opposite Party did not respond properly regarding the matured chit amount, hence the Complainant approached the 1st Opposite Party and reported that the matured amount has not been disbursed/ paid to her. The 1st Opposite Party instructed the 2nd Opposite Party to take proper action on the 2 complaint made by the Complainant and then the 2nd Opposite Party has issued a statement of accounts stating that the Chit has already been taken on 07.07.2011 itself and the amount has been disbursed to her. On hearing that the Chit has been taken and the amount has been disbursed, she was extremely shocked as she has not taken the chit. The Complainant further submitted that she has not taken the chit and the matured amount has not been disbursed to her. The 1st Opposite Party being a longstanding private investment agency, she has joined the Chit in the 2nd Opposite Party branch hoping that her hard earned money would be safe and secure but the Chit has been taken without her knowledge and the amount has been disbursed which is not even communicated to the Complainant and that the same could not have happened without the knowledge of the 2nd Opposite Party. The Complainant further submitted that the 2nd Opposite Party and the 3rd Opposite Party have fraudulently taken the chit and misappropriated the money in the month of July 2011 itself but without knowing the same, the Complainant has paid the monthly premium until the completion of maturity period. She is not even aware as to in whose name the cheques have been issued and in which account it has been credited. She has requested the 2nd Opposite Party to state in which account the said cheques have been credited but the 2nd Opposite Party refused to give the details of the account in which the cheques have been credited. The 2nd Opposite Party ought to have acted proactively to protect the investor and should have steps as to what went wrong but the 2nd Opposite Party was not prepared to part with the details as to whether the cheque has been crossed and the account in which the amount has been credited. The Complainant submitted that she participated in the chit to save her hard earned money for the purpose of her children future needs and has not taken the chit and that now her signature has been forged and the amount has been swindled. She further submitted that she has taken several attempts to recover the same and that the Sriram chits has simply washed their hands asking her to see the 3rd Opposite Party and that the 3rd Opposite Party has threatened her of dire consequences if she insists on the chit amount and have also asked to forget the chit amount. Hence the Complainant has lodged a complaint with the Madipakkam Police Station on 16.02.2015 and a CSR has been issued. The Complainant submitted that for almost two years she has been running from pillar to post with a huge mental agony to recover the amount. She has also sent a legal notice to the Opposite Parties on 16.02.2015. All the Opposite Parties have received the notice and the 1st Opposite Party has made a reply on 10.04.2015 stating that they have called for details from the Branch and would send a detailed reply. But thereafter there has been no reply from the 1st Opposite Party. The act of the 1st and 2nd Opposite Parties amounts to deficiency of service. The deficiency of service on the part of 1st and 2nd Opposite Parties continues till date. The 1st Opposite Party being a renowned private investment agency ought to have acted scrupulously and redressed the grievance of the Complainant but failed to do so. Hence the complaint.
3. Written Version filed by the 1st & 2nd Opposite Parties in brief is as follows:-
Admittedly the Complainant joined chit through the 3rd Opposite Party. The 3rd Opposite Party acted as the agent for both the Complainant as well as 1st and 2nd Opposite Parties. When the 1st and 2nd Opposite Parties are accused of responsible for the act done by the 3rd Opposite Party, the Complainant is also equally bound by the acts of 3 Opposite Party done as the agent of the Complainant. The Complainant and the Opposite Parties are related and knows fully about each other. The Complainant/subscriber acted through her agent, the 3rd Opposite Party. The agent with the authority of the Complainant prized the chit on 7.7.2011 at the 17th auction for the bid the amount of Rs.62,000/- on behalf of the Complainant and applied for SLIC Policy in the name of the relative of the Complainant. The pro-note, chit payment receipt and other documents were admittedly signed by the subscriber through the Agent. At the time of prizing the chit, the future liability was Rs.3,50,000/-. They both destroyed the security documents and authorization letter given in favour of the 3rd Opposite Party. In order to obtain the prize money without furnishing surety, the agent and the subscriber colluded together and gave a proposal for SLIC investment from the prize money. The proposal for policy was rejected by SLIC for want of medical certificate and the policy amount was returned to the Complainant. The Agent received the amount on behalf of the Complainant and proposed person. The proposed person, in the policy, Mr. Ayyaswami is also related to the agent and the subscriber. Thus the Complainant and the agent, took the prize money. This is evidenced by the letter dated 25-8-2014 given by the agent Janaki that she would get the settlement letter from the Complainant as she has already given the prize money to the Complainant. The Complainant acted in collusion with the agent and is aware that the agent has committed manipulation and destruction of the records. The Complainant as well as the agent with a preconceived plan to cheat the Opposite Parties colluded together and done several acts in furtherance of fraud. Thereafter caused the Complainant to file the complaint alleging prize money was not disbursed. The 3rd Opposite Party agent has committed similar fraud in respect of several persons with other chits. Hence, the Opposite Parties 1 and 2 lodged a police compliant with the Commissioner of Police on 17.4.2015 and they redirected the complaint to Madipakkam Police Station for registering FIR. But, so far FIR has not been registered against the third Opposite Party. On the other hand, the police enquired and advised the Complainant to amicably settle the issue with the 3rd Opposite Party. But the agent conveniently failed to comply with the direction and instigated the Complainant to file this complaint so that the Opposite Parties would give up the Police Complaint against the 3rd Opposite Party. Both the subscriber/Complainant as well as the agent joined together and cheated the company. Had the Police enquired the case, the connection between the Complainant and 3rd Opposite Party would have been surfaced/revealed. Without prejudice to the above contention, the above complaint is filed after two years from the date of termination of the chit and lapse of five years from prizing the chit. The chit commenced during May 2010 and terminated during August 2013. The chit was prized on 07.07.2011. The Complainant for the first time issued the notice dated 16.06.2014 and filed the Complaint on 20.10.2015. Statement of facts disclosed in the cause of action is false does not exist and the complaint is liable to be dismissed in limini as barred by Law of limitation. The prize money was given to the Complainant through the agent who received it, is proper discharge under Contract Act and Chit Fund Act. Since all the acts were done by 3rd Opposite Party with the authority and knowledge of Complainant, the complaint will not lie against Opposite Parties 1 & 2. Hence prayed to dismiss the complaint.
4. Written Version filed by the 3rd Opposite Party in brief is as follows:-
The 3rd Opposite Party states that, it is true that the Complainant joined in chit with the 2nd Opposite Party, branch of the Sriram Chit Funds through the 3rd Opposite Party who is the agent for a chit. The Complainant never asked matured amount from the 3rd Opposite Party because the 2nd Opposite Party has to pay the matured amount to the Complainant. In the meanwhile there was a delay in disburse the matured amount from the 2nd Opposite Party, the Complainant requested the 3rd Opposite Party to arrange Rs.3,75,000/-. Immediately the 3rd Opposite Party arranged through her sister and paid Rs.3,75,000/- to the Complainant. The averments that the 2nd Opposite Party and the 3rd Opposite Party have fraudulently taken the chit and misappropriated the money in the month of July 2011 itself but without knowing the same, the Complainant has paid the monthly premium until the completion of maturity period are denied as incorrect. The 3rd Opposite Party submitted that, the averment in para 10 of the complaint is that the Complainant has taken several attempts to recover the same and that the Sriram chits has simply washed their hands asking her to see the 3rd Opposite Party and that the 3rd Opposite Party has threatened her of dire consequences if she insists on the chit amount and have also asked to forget the chit amount are denied as incorrect. Hence prayed to dismiss the complaint.
5. The Complainant submitted her Proof Affidavit and Written Arguments. On the side of the Complainant, documents were marked as Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-9. The 1st and 2nd Opposite Parties submitted, their Proof Affidavit and Written Arguments. On the side of the 1st and 2nd Opposite Parties, documents were marked as Ex.B-1 to Ex.B-3. Proof Affidavit of 3rd Opposite Party was closed.
Points for Consideration:-
1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties?
2. Whether the Complainant is entitled for reliefs claimed?
3. To what other reliefs the Complainant is entitled to?
Point No.1:
The admitted facts are that the Complainant joined Chit transaction with the 2nd Opposite Party through the 3rd Opposite Party for the Chit value of Rs.5,00,000/- for a period of 40 months commencing from May 2010 to August 2013 at a monthly premium of Rs.12,500/- and that she was allotted with the Chit No.69001/15. The dispute arose as to the non-payment of the maturity amount by the Opposite Parties to the Complainant.
The contention of the Complainant was that when she approached the Opposite Parties seeking disbursal of the matured amount, The 2nd Opposite Party had issued a Statement of Accounts stating that the on heart that Chit was already taken on 07.07.2011, on hearing that the amount has been disbursed to her, the Complainant was shocked as she had not taken the Chit. Without knowing the fact that the Chit was taken in July 2011, she had paid the monthly premium till the maturity period. Further contended that the details to which account the amount was credited was not known. Several attempts made by the Complainant to recover the Chit amount ended in vain. Hence the Complainant had lodged a complaint with the Madipakkam Police Station on 16.02.2015.
The 1st and 2nd Opposite Parties contended that the Complainant through the 3rd Opposite Party had prized the Chit on 07.07.2011 at the 17th auction for the bid amount of Rs.62,000/- and applied for SLIC Policy in the name of the relative of the Complainant. In order to obtain the prize amount without furnishing surety, the agent and the Complainant colluded to give a proposal for SLIC investment from the prize money, which proposal was rejected for want of Medical Certificate, and the Policy amount was returned to the Complainant.
As regards the contention of the Opposite Parties that the Complaint is filed after 2 years from the date of termination of the Chit and after lapse of 5 years from prizing the Chit as the Chit commenced during May 2010 and terminated during August 2013 and that the Chit was prized on 07.07.2011, however the complaint is filed on 20.10.2015 hence barred by limitation is not acceptable as the Opposite Parties had failed to disburse the maturity amount till date to the Complainant which give rise to continuous cause of action and hence the complaint is not barred by limitation.
As regards the contention of the Complainant that the matured amount was not paid to her by the Opposite Parties, the 1st and 2nd Opposite Party contended that the 3rd Opposite Party with the authority of the Complainant prized the chit on 07.07.2011 and had received the prize money as evidenced from letter dated 25.08.2014 given by the 3rd Opposite Party, Ex.B-3 to the 1st Opposite Party is not acceptable as the 1st and 2nd Opposite Party had not provided any document to show that the 3rd Opposite Party is authorized to receive the amount on behalf of the Complainant. As per Ex.A-1 chit is in the name of the Complainant for the chit value of Rs.5,00,000/- and that the Complainant had paid the entire premium amounts from May 2010 to August 2013, the prized dated is shown that as 07.07.2011. However, the 1st and 2nd Opposite Party did not produce any document to prove that the Complainant had received the prize amount. The letter dated 25.08.2014 given by 3rd Opposite Party that she would get settlement letter from the Complainant is not sufficient proof that the prize amount was given to the Complainant and which would not absolve the liability of the Opposite Parties from paying the chit value to the Complainant.
Further as admitted by the 1st and 2nd Opposite Parties, as 3rd Opposite Party being the agent had committed fraud in respect of several persons concerning other chits and that the 1st and 2nd Opposite Parties had lodged Police complaint against the 3rd Opposite Party and another with Commissioner of Police on 17.04.2015, who redirected the complaint to Madipakkam Police Station, but no FIR was registered, instead the Police advised the Complainant to settle the issue.
It is pertinent to note that the Complainant had also lodged a complaint to the Inspector of Police, Madipakkam Police Station and a CSR is Had issued as evident form Ex.A-8. Had the Complainant received the prize amount, the Complainant would not have lodged complaint against the 3rd Opposite Party and Crl.O.P. No.16193/2015 before the Hon'ble High Court, Madras to direct the Police to register a case. Hence the contention that the
Complainant in collusion with 3rd Opposite Party was attempting to cheat the 1st and 2nd Opposite Parties cannot be sustained.
Further it is evident from Ex.B-1 that the 1st and 2nd Opposite Parties had given a complaint stating that the 3rd Opposite Party had acted as the agent of the 1st and 2nd Opposite Parties whose job was to join customers in the chit conducted by the 1st and 2nd Opposite Parties and pay the chit amount to the company collected from the customers. That she had misappropriated the chit amount of Rs.5,00,000/- belonging to the Complainant in collusion with Branch Manager.
In view of the aforesaid discussions, the act of the 1st and 2nd Opposite Parties in not disbursing the value of the chit to the Complainant inspite of the entire premiums paid by the Complainant and claiming to have disbursed to the 3rd Opposite Party, as authorized by the Complainant, when no such authorization was made by the Complainant amounts to deficiency in service. Accordingly, Point No.1 is answered.
Point Nos.2 and 3:
As discussed and decided in Point No.1 that the Opposite Parties have committed deficiency of service in not disbursing the chit value to the Complainant, the Opposite Parties are liable to pay the sum of Rs.5,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% from the date of filing of the complaint till the date of realization and to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards litigation cost of this complaint. The Complainant is not entitled for any other reliefs. Accordingly, Point Nos. 2 &3 are answered.
In the result, the complaint is allowed in part. The Opposite Parties 1, 2 and 3 are jointly and severally directed to return the maturity amount of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Only) with interest at the rate of 6% from the date of filing of the complaint till the date of realisation and to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) towards litigation cost of this complaint, within 8 weeks from the date receipt of this order.
In the result this complaint is allowed in part.
Dictated to Steno-Typist, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Commission, on 12th of December 2022.
S. NANDAGOPALAN T.R. SIVAKUMHAR B.JIJAA
MEMBER II MEMBER I PRESIDENT
List of documents filed on the side of the Complainant:-
Ex.A1 | 12.09.2013 | Statement of accounts |
Ex.A2 | 07.02.2014 | Communication sent by the Banking Ombudsman |
Ex.A3 | 14.02.2014 | Communication sent by the Banking Ombudsman |
Ex.A4 | 28.02.2014 | Communication sent by Reserve Bank of India |
Ex.A5 | 16.06.2014 | Notice sent by Complainant to the 2nd Respondent |
Ex.A6 | 16.02.2015 | Complaint given to the Police with CSR |
Ex.A7 | 16.02.2015 | Legal Notice sent by the Complainant with acknowledgement |
Ex.A8 | 10.04.2015 | Reply sent by the 1st Respondent |
Ex.A9 | 01.07.2015 | Order passed in Crl.. O.P No.16195 of 2015 |
List of documents filed on the side of the 1st & 2nd Opposite Parties:-
Ex.B1 | 07.07.2011 | Prizing of Chit |
Ex.B2 | 17.04.2015 | Complaint given to Commissioner of Police |
Ex.B3 | 25.08.2014 | Letter by 3rd Opposite Party |
List of documents filed on the side of the 3rd Opposite Party:-
NIL
S. NANDAGOPALAN T.R. SIVAKUMHAR B.JIJAA
MEMBER II MEMBER I PRESIDENT
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.
Bhanu Pratap
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)
Bhanu Pratap
Featured RecomendedHighly recommended!
Experties
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Phone Number
7982270319
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.