BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : HYDERABAD.
FA No. 1232 OF 2013 AGAINST CC No.981 OF 2010
ON THE FILE OF DISTRICT FORUM- III, HYDERABAD
Between :
M/s. TEXCEL INFOTECH PVT. LTD.,
Rep. by its Managing Director,
Sri B. Ravinder,
H.No.10-3-167/A, 1st Floor,
Block – A, St. Johans Road,
Secunderabad – 500025. …Appellant/ Complainant
AND :
- M/s. Vijay Bhargavi Chit Fund Pvt. Ltd.,
Rep. by it’s Managing Director,
II Floor, Sri Datta Sai Commercial Complex,
RTC X Roads,
Hyderabad – 500020.
- M/s. Vijay Bhargavi Chit Fund Pvt., Ltd.,
Rep. by its Manager,
301 & 303, Sri Datta Sai Commercial Complex,
RTC X Roads,
Hyderabad – 500020. …Respondents / Opposite parties
Counsel for the Appellant / Complainant : M/s. Gopi Rajesh & Associates
Counsel for the Respondents / Opposite parties : Sri A.K.Narasimha Rao
Hon’ble Sri Justice B.N.Rao Nalla … President
&
Sri Patil Vithal Rao … Member
Friday, the Sixth day of January
Two thousand Seventeen
Oral Order : (Per Hon’ble Sri. Patil Vithal Rao, Member).
***
Having aggrieved by the order dated 13.05.2013 passed by the District Forum-III, Hyderabad (for short, “the District Forum”), in C.C.no.981/2010 the complainant has preferred the present appeal.
2. The Appellant herein, who is the complainant in the case, has set up the claim before the District Forum on the grounds, in brief, that he became a member in the Chit Group no.MTOIV-II of the Chit value of Rs.5,00,000/- of the Respondents / Opposite parties on 24.05.2008 for a total period of 40 months on monthly subscription of Rs.12,500/- and that became a successful bidder in the chit auction on 26.10.2008 for the prize amount of Rs.3,25,000/- by forgoing discount of Rs.1,75,000/-. He has further contended that despite his furnishing of sureties, the Respondents did not release the prize amount but insisted to furnish security of an Immovable Property or a Bank Guarantee, illegally. They have ignored repeated requests and a legal notice sent by the Appellant and intentionally dragged the matter, without making any payment, amounting to deficiency in service.
3. The Respondents herein resisted the claim before the District Forum by contending, interalia, that the Appellant had submitted personal sureties only on 07.04.2009 i.e., after a lapse of 6 months from the date of auction and they were also found un satisfactory and that as such the prize money could not be released in his favour.
4. After conducting due enquiry into the matter and hearing the parties the learned District Forum dismissed the complaint by the order dated 13.05.2013 which is now impugned.
5. The Appellant has contended in the appeal, in brief, that though he had furnished four sureties who were officials of the Respondents, they were not considered intentionally till February, 2009 and that subsequently he had furnished two sureties in the month of April-2009 and the same were also not considered by them. Their demand to furnish security of an immovable property worth Rs.8,00,000/- with one guarantor or a Bank guarantee is illegal. But the District Forum did not consider these aspects and passed the impugned order one sided on assumptions and presumptions which is contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case and that as such liable to be set aside by allowing the present appeal.
6. Perused the written arguments and heard both the learned counsel.
7. Now the point for consideration is that:
Whether the impugned order is erroneous and illegal both on facts and under law and that as such liable to be set aside?
8. Point:- The Chit transaction under which the Appellant became successful bidder and non-payment of prize money to him by the Respondents are not in dispute. The only dispute is with regard to furnishing of sureties by the Appellant for releasing the prize amount. As per the Respondents the sureties, furnished by the Appellant, were not satisfactory to cover the future liability for the chit amount.
9. Under the Chit Fund Act, 1982 the Foreman is bound to pay the prize amount to the highest bidder on furnishing sufficient security. This condition has been incorporated in Clause -18 [2] of the Agreement of Chit under Ex.B7 in accordance with Section 23 of the Act, 1982. In the present case the Appellant had furnished his personal bond with 4 sureties viz., Mr. B.Ravinder, S. Balaji Singh, B. Narender and Ravinder Singh but as per the Respondents, as there were certain discrepancies, the same were not accepted. Thereafter it seems the Appellant had furnished two additional sureties viz., G. Anil Kumar and G.Rajasekhar. But evidently, as per a copy of the plaint in OS.no.549/2009 on the file of the IIIrd Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Courts, Secunderabad under EX.B6, the said Anil Kumar is defendant No.2 so also the Appellant herein is defendant no.5. The said suit was filed by the Respondents Company for recovery of money and that the same was pending at the time of the present chit transaction. Under this circumstance, the Respondents, in our opinion, have rightly refused to accept the surety of G.Anil Kumar because he and the Appellant were guarantors to one Mr. B. Papa Reddy who is defendant no.1 in the suit and that as such insisted to furnish security of either an immovable property or a bank guarantee, to cover the future liability, to release the chit amount. A Foreman of the Chit Fund Company is duty bound to protect interest of other chit fund’s members and to ensure the payment of future liability of the prized subscriber. Having regard to this fact and the dictum of the law, referred supra, the Appellant cannot attribute deficiency in service on the part of the Respondents in refusing to release the prize amount in his favour.
10. The learned counsel for the Appellant, in support of the claim in question, has relied on a decision dated 05.08.2014 of this Commission in F.A.no.222/2013, between: “ the Branch Manager, M/s. Kapil Chit Funds Pvt. Ltd., Visakhapatnam and others AND T.Kaveeshwara Rao”. In this case despite the complainant’s furnishing of sufficient sureties immediately to the satisfaction of Foreman of the Chit Fund Company, the prize money was not released in his favour and at a later stage they removed the complainant from out of the chit and allotted the same to another subscriber. There was also no evidence to show that the complainant was defaulted in another chit. In these circumstances, this Commission while dismissing the appeal of the opposite parties directed them to pay the prize money to the complainant after adjusting the other amounts which were due by him. But in the present case the Appellant did not furnish the sureties immediately after becoming a prized subscriber and that later on the sureties furnished by him were found to be not satisfactory to the Foreman. Further, he was a surety to another defaulter by name B.Papa Reddy in another chit group of the same Chit Fund Company. Therefore, in our view, the said decision is of no avail to him. It is not his case that as per the instructions of the Respondents he had furnished sufficient security of either an immovable property or a bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Foreman and that even then he failed to release the prize money. The Appellant did not dispute the contention of the Respondents that he failed to furnish such a security to claim the prize money.
11. We have given a careful consideration to the impugned order. The learned District Forum has considered entire material evidence placed on record and came to a just conclusion by assigning sound and satisfactory reasoning. Therefore, we hold that the impugned order is neither erroneous nor illegal and that as such needs no interference. Thus, the appeal is devoid of any merits and as such must fail.
12. The point is answered accordingly against the Appellant.
13. In the result, the appeal is dismissed but in the circumstances the parties shall bear their own costs.
PRESIDENT MEMBER
Dt. 06.01.2017
