BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM :: KADAPA Y.S.R DISTRICT
PRESENT SMT. K. SIREESHA, B.L., PRESIDENT FAC
SRI M.V.R. SHARMA, MEMBER.
Friday, 06th June 2014
CONSUMER COMPLAINT No. 59/ 2013
N.L. Narayana Reddy, age 49 years,
H.No. 1/2095-1A, Prakash Nagar,
Kadapa, A.P. Pin – 516 001. Complainant.
Vs.
1) Branch Manager, Kapil Chit, 19/81, Siva Complex,
Near Mayura Bakery, Madras Road, Kadapa, Pin : 516 001.
2) Chairman & Managing Director, Kapil Chit Pvt. Ltd.,
D.No. 3-6-9/10, 1st floor, Above Corporation Bank,
Vivekananda Nagar, Kukatpally, Hyderabad. Respondents.
This complaint coming on this day for final hearing on 2-6-2014 in the presence of Sri N.L. Narayana Reddy, party in person complainant and Sri M. Nagi Reddy, Advocate for Respondents and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following:-
O R D E R
(Per Smt. K. Sireesha, President FAC),
1. Complaint filed under section 12 of the C.P. Act 1986.
2. The brief facts of the complaint are as follows:- The complainant joined in Kapil Chit fund as subscriber in the year 2011 May at R1 branch for Rs. 5,00,000/- chit. The complainant paid all the installments regularly for payment of regular installments the complaint had received incentives every month from the respondent. The complainant had paid the chit amount before 27th of every month.
3. The complainant as in need of money for his son’s education he lifted the chit for a bid of Rs. 1,55,000/- in auction. As per chit fund company rules the complainant had produced the sureties and salary certificate to the chit fund company i.e. R1 on 8-3-2013. The respondents delayed in enquiry of the employees’ sureties, delayed the payment of chit amount.
4. The complainant approached R1 and told him about his necessity of money and settled his chit amount as early as possible. But there is lot of negligence on the part of R1. After so many requests R1 had given the cheque for Rs. 3,26,937/-. As per rules and regulations of the Chit Fund Company, from the date of auction the bid should be paid within one month time i.e. the bid amount has to be paid by 27-3-2013. But there is delay and they collected fine of Rs. 50/- from the complainant. The respondent had paid the cheque amount after deducting the installment of the chit for the month of March 2013. When the complainant questioned about the delay of payment on 29-4-2013 there is no proper reply from R1 and R1 negligently replied to the complainant.
5. As the complainant son N. Bharathrami Reddy, was studying Hotel Management course at Mehidipatnam, Hyderabad as he has to go to Malesia for training the complainant had borrowed amount from private persons at 24% interest. As the Chit Fund company has delayed payment the complainant got Rs. 30,000/- loss and the complainant had faced much mental agony. As there is negligence and deficiency of service on the part of the respondents 1 & 2. So the complainant is forced to file this complaint.
6. As the complainant is subscriber of R1, which is situated at Kadapa and the complaint coming under the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble forum. A court fee of Rs. 100/- is paid by way of I.P.O.
7. The complainant therefore, prays that the Hon’ble forum to award decree in favour of him and against the respondents (1) to pay chit amount of Rs. 3,45,000/- with 24% interest for delay of 2 months, for mental agony and economical loss of Rs. 30,000/- and for deficiency of service of Rs. 10,000/- for costs of the complaint Rs. 5,000/-.
8. Counter filed on behalf of R1, the same is adopted by R2. The petition is unjust and not maintainable either in law or on facts of the case.
9. All the allegations made in the petition are denied and false except the facts those were expressly admitted herein are true. The allegations made in the complaint that the complainant joined as a member in respondent company and paid installments regularly after deducting the dividend are admitted. The further allegations that the complainant has participated in the auction conducted by the respondent on 27-2-2013 he is the highest bidder for forgo Rs. 1,55,000/- also true and correct. The further allegations made in the complaint that he furnished sureties by way of salary certificates on 8-3-2013 itself and the respondent company failed to conduct enquiry and there by caused much delay all are denied by this respondent. The further allegations that the complainant roaming around respondent after number of times for charge also false and invented. The further allegations that the son of the complainant prosecutor hotel management course at Mehidipatnam supposed to go Malaysia country for training and head of money he participated in auction all are not known this respondent. However, the complainant has to prove the said allegations by filing documentary evidence.
10. It is submitted that the complainant participated in an auction conducted by the respondent company on 27-2-2013 but he produced the salary certificates of guarantors on 3rd week of March 2013, but not as alleged in the complainant that he produced salary certificates of sureties on 8-3-2013. As seen from the salary certificates produced by him the salary certificates for guarantor M. Rama Krishna Yadav issued on 14-3-2013 and pay slip of Annapureddy Apparna Devi issued on 16-3-2013. Thus the contention that complainant produced the salary certificates of guarantors on 8-3-2013 is false and invented. There is no bonifides on the part of the complainant approach the court.
11. It is further submitted that the complainant produced the salary certificates of guarantors in the 3rd week of March, 2013 and immediately the respondent company officials conducted verification and visited their working place and the enquiry report and relevant documents forwarded to Zonal office at Kurnool and immediately after approval of Zonal office, the respondent company authorities issued a cheque. Hence, there is no delay for issuing of cheque in fact complainant himself delayed to submitted documents of guarantors.
12. There is no negligence of same on the part of the respondent company. It is therefore, prayed that the Hon’ble court may be pleased to dismiss the complaint with costs.
13. On the basis of the above pleadings the following points are settled for determination.
- Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief as prayed by him or not?
- Whether there is negligence or deficiency of service on the part of the Respondents?
- To what relief?
14. On behalf of the complainant Ex. A1 to A7 were marked and on behalf of respondents Ex. B1 & B2 were marked.
15. Point Nos. 1 & 2. The complainant is a member in R1 company and he is subscriber of Rs. 5,00,000/- chit under Ex. A7. The complainant participated in auction conducted by respondents on 27-2-2013 and he is the highest bidder for forgoing Rs. 1,55,000/- and lifted his chit for his economic needs. As per counter of the respondents the complainant had produced sureties of M. Ramakrishna Yadav, 14-3-2013 and Annapureddy Apparna Devi on 16-3-2013. As per chit fund rules and regulations the bid amount had to be issued to the subscriber within one month from the date of auction. Here the respondents had issued cheque after deducting March Month installment, cheque for Rs. 3,26,937/- on 29-4-2013. As per counter filed by the R1 t is an admitted fact that the complainant had given sureties on 14-3-2013 and 16-3-2013 respectively i.e. within one month of the auction date. It is bounded duty of the respondents to issue the bid amount to the complainant on or before 27-3-2013. It is the bounded duty of the respondents to enquire in to the sureties as early as possible. The respondents need not delay for payment by showing unnecessary causes. There is no meaning in delaying the payment after the chit was lifted. So there is clear delay of one month two days in payment of bid amount to the complainant. So there is gross negligence and deficiency of service on the part of the respondents 1 & 2. The complainant is eligible for compensation as prayed by him.
16. Point No. 3 In the result, the complaint is allowed, directing the respondents 1 & 2 jointly and severally liable to pay 18% interest for the chit value amount of Rs. 3,45,000/- (Rupees three lakhs and forty five thousands only) for one month 2 days (delay in payment) to the complainant, pay Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousands) towards mental agony, pay Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousands only) towards deficiency of service, Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees two thousands only) towards cost of complaint to the complainant, within 45 days of date of receipt of orders.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum, this the 6th June 2014
MEMBER PRESIDENT FAC
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses examined.
For Complainant NIL For Respondents : NIL
Exhibits marked for Complainant : -
Ex. A1 P/c of Register letter addressed to R1, dt. 15-5-2013.
Ex. A2 P/c of Registered letter addressed to R2, dt. 15-5-2013.
Ex. A3 P/c of chit receipt dt. 28-4-2013.
Ex. A4 P/c of general receipt dt. 28-4-2013.
Ex. A5 P/c of cheque bearing No. 346563, dt. 29-4-2013 for Rs. 3,26,937/-
Ex. A6 P/c of received amount particulars copy.
Ex. A7 P/c of Chit Book issued by the Kapil Chit, (Hyderabad) Pvt. Ltd.,
Branch, Kadapa.
Exhibits marked for Respondents: -
Ex. B1 P/c of aadar card, pan card, salary cum service certificate of the complainant and House hold card, salary certificate and election Identity card of N. Ramakrishna Yadav.
Ex. B2 P/c of salary cum service certificate of N. Samba Siva Reddy and Identity card and Pay slip of A. Aparna Devi.
MEMBER PRESIDENT FAC
Copy to :-
- Sri N.L. Narasimha Reddy, party in person complainant.
- Sri M. Nagi Reddy, Advocate for Respondents.
B.V.P.
