BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM (Under Consumer Protection Act, 1986) MEDAK AT SANGAREDDY.
PRESENT: Sri Y. Aravinda Reddy, Spl Judge for SCs & STs (POA) Act cum – V Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge / FAC President
Smt. Meena Ramanathan, B.Com., Lady Member
Friday, the 21st day of September, 2012
CC. No. 10 of 2012
Between:
P. Narsimah Reddy S/o Manik Reddy,
Age: 55 years, Occ: Agricultural,
R/o H.No. 2-3-123, Madhavanagar,
Sangareddy, Medak District. …….Complainant
And
1. M/s Mahalaxmi Chitfunds,
Rep. by its Managing Partner,
B. Mahender Kumar S/o B. Balshetty,
Age: Major, Occ: Managing Partner,
R/o H.No. 1-5-5/A5,
Veerabhadranagar,Sangareddy.
2. Smt. M. Padma W/o Shankar,
Age: Major, Occ: Partner,
R/o H.No. 2-4-45/1, Baswanagar,
Sangareddy.
3. Ch. Srinivas S/o Veerppa,
Age: Major, Occ: Partner,
R/o H.No. Angadipet(V) & (M),
Sangareddy, Medak District.
4. Shanthi Prabhu S/o Shivaiah,
Age: 47 years, Occ: Partner,
R/o H.No. 5-1-127/8/A,
Shanthinagar, Sangareddy, Medak Dist. ….opposite parties
This case came up for final hearing before us on 31.08.2012 in the presence of Sri C. Vittal Reddy, Advocate for complainant and Opposite parties are called absent, upon hearing the arguments, on perusing the record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Forum delivered the following:
O R D E R
(Per se Smt. Meena Ramanathan, Lady Member)
- . This complaint is filed under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the complainant alleging that he joined in the chit called Mahalaxmi Chit Funds, Shanthinagar, Sangareddy. He subscribed for an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- in the group – MLIF – 03 for a period of 40 months and he has to pay Rs. 2,500 per month.
2. The complainant joined the chit in Jan 2006 and he paid a total of 21 instalments. He paid in all Rs. 39,025/- but he could not continue to do so as the opposite parties all of a sudden dis-continued their business. When he approached them for the prized money, they did not give him any response. He sent them a legal notice on 29.12.2011 through registered post. The notice was served only on opposite party No. 3 and they gave their reply dated. 6.01.2012 but have not made any payment.
He further submits that the opposite parties have intentionally collected money from subscribers and are not paying him the prize money. Since they (opposite parties) closed the company he is forced to file this complaint, seeking redressal. Although notices were served, none of the respondents came forward to file their version. Hence the complainant submits his complaint with a prayer to direct the opposite parties to pay the prize amount of Rs. 52,500/- @ 18% interest from date of last payment – i.e. 10.07.2007 till realization and award a compensation of Rs. 25,000/- and costs.
3. Complainant let her evidence in the form of affidavit reiterating the facts stated in her complaint and submitted documents Exs. A1 to A7. Complainant filed written arguments and affidavit etc., . Although notices were issued, it was served only on opposite party No. 3. Despite giving a paper publication in Eenadu dated. 26.07.2012 there has been no response. Opposite party No. 3 has been set exparty.
4. The Point for consideration are 1) whether the complainant is entitled to the chit amount of Rs. 52,500/- together with interest and costs as prayed for. 2). What relief?
5. The complainant filed Ex. A2 – that is nine (9) receipts of Mahalaxmi chit funds, for various amounts paid towards the chit. On the receipt, the chit No. MLIF-03 is clearly mentioned and the signature on few of the receipts tallies with the signature on the partnership deed obtained from the registrar of firms- Stamp Department - Ex.A7.
In the Ex.A7 – the partnership deed the opposite party no. 1, 2, 3 and 4 are mentioned and the deed was executed on 17th July 2005. They have mutually agreed to run the business under the name of Mahalaxmi Chit Funds.
Ex. A4 is the reply notice given to the complainant by opposite party No. 3 (who has been made exparty) stating that he is no longer a partner of M/s Mahalaxmi Chit funds and has retired from the partnership. He also states that he and one Mr. G. Mallesham have retired from the partnership and this has been intimated to the registrar of firms and has been accepted vide receipt No. 49 dated 17.05.2006. Although he gives a receipt number, he has not provided any proof of the receipt. Merely stating that does not absolve him of the responsibility.
The complainant has filed the pass book and the registered partnership deed to prove his case.
There is no doubt regarding his being a subscriber to the chit. Despite the notices being issued to the opposite parties, it was not served on them. It was served only on opposite party no. 3 and they failed to make any representation. Although the opposite parties have not come forward to represent their case or to defend themselves, we are of the considered opinion that a grave dis-service has been done to the complainant. Against all odds he made several payments to the chit fund, only to have their doors shut on him and no trace of the partners. When they are registered firm, there should be a proper check on their activities and dealings. There should be accountability on the part of the chit fund company. More so when they are registered, should n’t there be accountability to the registrar?
Does this chit fund have branches in other towns? If so is there any check on their business dealings? It is a matter of grave concern if a poor subscriber cannot get his due.
Since the opposite parties have not come forward to represent their case or to defend themselves, shows their lack of responsibility.
6. In the result, we allow the complaint of the complainant and direct the opposite parties to pay him a sum of Rs. 52,500/- with interest at 9% p.a. from June 2007 till date of payment and Rs.1000/- towards costs.Time for compliance: One month.
Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum this 21st day of September, 2012.
Sd/- Sd/-
FAC PRESIDENT LADY MEMBER
Copy to:
1.The complainant
2.The opposite party
3.Spare Copy.
