BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM:KURNOOL
Present: Sri.K.V.H. Prasad, B.A., LL.B President
And
Smt. C.Preethi, M.A.LL.B., Lady Member
Wednesday the 17th day of September, 2008
C.C.No. 57/07
Between:
A.Mahaboob Basha,
School Assistant, Z.P.P.High School, Bhagyanagaram Village, Allagadda,
Kurnool District. … Complainant
Versus
- Shiram Chits Private Limited, Represented its Branch Manager,
C.B.Road, Tadipathri. Ananthapur District.
2. Shiram Chits Private Limited, Represented its Branch Manager,
Sreenivasanagar, Nandyal, Kurnool District.
3. Shiram Chits Private Limited, Represented its Branch Manager,
Gayathri Estate, Kurnool. … Opposite parties
This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri.P.Siva Sudharshan, Advocate, for the complainant, and Sri.S.V.Krishna Reddy, Advocate, for the opposite parties and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following.
ORDER
(As per Sri. K.V.H.Prasad, President)
C.C.No.57/07
1. This case of the complainant is filed U/S 11 and 12 of C.P.Act seeking direction on the opposite party to pay to the complainant Rs.90,000/- as compensation for mental agony and cost of the case alleging that the complainant was member of Chit No.53001 / 24 meant for a period of fourty months for a chit amount of Rs. 1 lakh run by opposite party No.1 and in the 17th action held on 18-1-2006 he was successful bidder for a prize amount of Rs.79,500/- and submitted the required solvencies of sureties to opposite party No.1 on 25-1-2006 through DTDC courier , Allagadda and when it is payable within 30 days from the receipt of sureties and in spite of several approaches and reminders the opposite parties did not pay the amount as expected and at last on 15-3-2006 paid an amount of Rs.74,926/- deducting the monthly installments of February and March and on account of belated payments the complainant was constrained to have loans from Banks and money lenders at a higher rate of interest to meet his necessities and suffered mental agony also besides to financial losses and the jurisdiction to this forum as the periodical installments of said chit were paid through the branch office of the opposite party at Kurnool and Nandyal (opposite parties 2 and 3) .
2. In pursuance of the receipt of the notice of this forum as to this case of the complainant the opposite parties caused their appearance through their counsel and contested the case denying their liability to complainants claim and any deficiency on its part and their by seeking dismissal of complainant case with cost.
3. The written version of the opposite party No.3, adopted by opposite parties 1 and 2 , even though admits the complainant as member of said chit and himself as successful bidder in 17th action held on 18-1-2006 for alleged prize amount and its payment to be made within 30 days of submission of sureties and payment of Rs.74,926/- on 15-3-2006 , but denies the alleged submission of solvencies of sureties on 25-1-2006 through DTDC courier , Allagadda and the opposite party not taking any steps for its payment alleging the submission of required solvencies and sureties by complainant on 21-2-2006 and after their due verification as to their genuineness and on compliance of further necessary formalities by complainant , without any further delay , on 15-3-2006 at Tadipathri the amount was paid to the complainant and so there is any deficiency or negligency on their part in making payment due to complainant .
4. In substantiation of the contentions while the complainant side has taken reliance on documentary record in Ex.A1 to A13, Ex.X1 to X3 and the evidence of PW.1 and 2, besides to the sworn affidavit of himself and his third parties I.Venkata Subbiah and P.Eswara Reddy and their replies exchanged to the interrogatories , the opposite party side has taken reliance on documentary record in Ex.B1 to B5 , and the evidence of RW 1 and 2 besides to the sworn affidavit of the opposite party No.3 in reiteration of its defence.
5. Hence, the point for consideration is whether there is any deficiency on the part of the opposite parties in payment of prize amount of complainant and there by any liability of them to the complainants claim .
6. As there is any dispute as to the status and privy of the complainant , the chit membership and his becoming successful bidder for the prize amount of Rs.79,500/- in 17th monthly action held on 18-1-2006 , the Ex.A1 – chit pass book in the name of the complainant and the monthly chit installments receipts in Ex.A2 to A6 needs any further appreciation than what they stands for especially when there is any contention as to any due of installments from the complainant . The Ex.A7 is a receipt dated 14-3-2006 for Rs.4,574/- from complainant. The entries of the reverse page of said Ex.A7 envisages the said amount was adjusted from the prize amount of Rs.79,500/-. The Ex.A8 merely envisages delivery of an account payee cheque to complainant on 15-3-2006 by executive of the opposite party . The Ex.A9 is the Xerox of account payee cheque dated 14-3-2006 for Rs.74,926/- bearing No.722829 which was said to have been delivered to the complainant on 15-3-2006 . As the said cheque payment to complainant on 15-3-2006 was not disputed by the complainant it needs any further appreciation as to its contents is concerned than what they convey .
7. The Ex.A10 is the counter file of State Bank of India showing to the credit of current account of complainant an amount of Rs.8,000/- and Ex.A11 is counter file showing to the credit of saving account of complainant an amount of Rs.4,000/-.There being any corresponding mention of them either in the complaint pleadings or the sworn affidavit of complainant and the evidence of P.W 1to 3 , they remain of any relevancy for their appreciation in this case.
8. The complainant alleges that the required solvencies of sureties for release of prize amount was sent to the opposite party through DTDC , Allagadda on 25-1-2006 . The EX.A12 is a courier receipt envisaging transmission there under from the complainant and its receipt by Sri. D.Hajee Valli Basha – Branch Manager Sri Ram Chits Private Limited , C.B.Road , Tadipatri . Those particulars in Ex.A12 being envisaging mere transmission by complainant which was received by the addressee at the other end is not remaining sufficient to assess what is actual sent there under , especially when the said recipient was not even examined to say what was actually received there under . Hence on the mere Ex.A12 it cannot be said that there under the complainant has sent the solvencies to the opposite party as alleged. Nor the Ex.A13 – DTDC Tracking Computer Statement – remains of any help on this aspect as it is more worst in furnishing any particulars and on the other hand envisage of the mere booking of shipment there under on 26-1-2006 without any further particulars as to from and to addresses .
9. The evidence of PW.2 – M. Nadem Hussain – says that on 19-2-2006 A.Mahaboob Basha ( complainant) gave him written report in Ex.X2 complaining against Sree Ram Chits, Tadipatri Banch ( opposite party No.1) as to non payment of chit amount and on that his corresponding on phone with opposite party no.1 and also reminding the opposite party No.1 about 15 days thereafter also on approach of complainant under Ex.X3 complaining non payment of chit amount and the opposite party No.1 ,on contact , promising to settle in two days and three days there after informing of the payment of amount to complainant. The said evidence of PW.1 and Ex.X2 to X3 remaining of any value being it solitary not having any basis foundation either in complaint pleadings or in the sworn affidavit of the complainant .
10. The Ex.B1 is the surety / security proposal form . It was said to have been signed by the prize bidder and surety members 1 to 3 of the complainant undertaking the future liability of Rs.57,500/- . It bears the signatures of A. Mahaboob Basha ( complainant) , I.V.Subbaih, P. Eswar Reddy and L.T. Chandra Mouli in the capacity of prize bidder and his sureties . None of their above said signatures bears any date of its execution. While such is so the affidavits of complainant, I. Venkata Subbaiah, and P. Eswar Reddy say the said signatures on Ex.B1 were done by them in the month January , 2006 without specifying the exact date on which the said signatures were subscribed on Ex.B1 by them . The evidence of PW.1 K. Ramakrishnudu on this aspect says they subscribed their signatures in Ex.B1 on 21-2-2006 .
11. The sworn affidavit of P. Eswara Reddy and I.V. Subbaiah while say along with them and complainant their headmaster K. Ramakrishnudu also signed on Ex.B1 it remains otherwise as the Ex.B1 does not contain the signature of K Ramakrishnudu and instead contains the signature of one L.T. Chandra Mouli whose name was not whispered by any of them. P.W.1 K. Ramakrishnudu -Head Master – does not at all say that he subscribed on the Ex.B1 .
12. The sworn affidavit of P. Eswara Reddy and I. Venkata Subbaiah say that they were verified on 7-3-2006 by agent of Nandyal Sree Ram Chit Company in their school . Neither the complaint pleadings nor the sworn affidavit of the complainant takes any such mention . But the evidence of PW.1 K. Ramakrishnudu – head master says the visit of Sree Ram Chits Company personal on 21-2-2006 for verification of sureties and prize bidder and the complainant and his sureties signing on Ex.B1 on 21-2-2006 and the Ex.B1 also indicates the receipt of it by opposite party on 21-2-2006 . In the above stated circumstances there appears any truth in alleged signing of Ex.B1 by complainant and his sureties in January, 2006 itself and its dispatch to the opposite party on 25-1-2006 under any DTDC courier .
13. The evidence of RW.2 E. Anand Kumar Goud – clerk of opposite party No.1 – says the cheque in Ex.B5 was given to the complainant on 14-3-2006 in token of the execution of Ex.B2 agreement and Ex.B3 promissory note . The perusal of the Ex.B2 ( agreement of guarantee) and Ex.B3 (promissory note for Rs.57,500/- towards future liability) envisages thee execution of them by the complainant and his sureties on 14-3-2006 . The cash voucher in Ex.B4 and Ex.B5 acknowledgement bearing the signature of the complainant also bears the date of execution as 14-3-2006. Further as per the PW.1 the date 14-3-2006 was Sunday and either the complainant or his sureties who were teachers of his school neither away to the duty either on permission or on C.L on 15-3-2006 which is working day . Hence in all probability and certainty the payment of amount under said chit to the complainant by the opposite party remains at 14-3-2006 and not on 15-3-2006 as merely alleged by the complainant and by the relevant signatures of the complainant and his sureties on Ex.B2 to B5 with date of their execution as 14-3-2006 stands as estoppel against the complainant and his sureties from taking any inconsistent pleas .
14. In the absence of placing any terms and conditions of chit providing a facility to winner of prize amount of chit to send surety / security proposal form by post and any obligation on the opposite parties to pay the prize amount immediately on submission of Ex.B1 without any due verification and satisfaction of the sureties and their solvencies undertakings along with complainant for future liability to the opposite parties under said chit and without following any further formalities and there being any dispute as to the term regarding processing and settlement within one month there appears any abnormal delay in payment of amount to the complainant on 14-3-2006 by the opposite party in the light of the receipt of Ex.B1 on 21-2-2006 . Therefore, there appears any deficiency on the part of the opposite parties in paying the entitled prize amount to the complainant and so there by any liability of the opposite party to the complainants claim as the complaint itself suffers for want of proper cause of action .
15. Consequently, the case of the complainant, being devoid of merit and force creating any liability of the opposite parties to the complainants claim , is dismissed with cost.
Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open bench on this the 17th day of September, 2008.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant : For the opposite parties :
PW.1. Deposition of PW-1 dated RW.1. Sworn affidavit of
14-9-2007 (K.Ramakrishnudu) OP.No.3 dated 7-8-2007.
PW.2. Deposition of PW-2 dated RW.2 Deposition of RW-2,
9-7-2008 (M. Nadeem Hussain) dated 13-12-2007 .
(E. Anand Kumar Goud)
List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-
Ex.A1. pass book issued to the complainant.
Ex.A2. Payment receipt for Rs.2,312/- dated 17-6-2006.
Ex.A3. Payment receipt for Rs.2,232/- dated 18-5-2006.
Ex.A4. payment receipt for Rs.2,230/- dated 3-4-2006.
Ex.A5. Payment receipt for Rs.2,337/- dated 18-7-2006.
Ex.A6. Payment receipt for Rs.2,300/- dated 16-8-2006.
Ex.A7. Payment receipt for Rs.4,574/- dated 14-3-2006 .
Ex.A8. Receipt for handing over cheque dated 15-3-2006.
Ex.A9. Xerox copy of cheque for Rs.74,926/- dated 14-3-2006.
EX.A10. Counter foil of SBI for Rs.8,000/- dated 16-1-2006.
Ex.A11. Counter foil of SBI for Rs.4,000/- dated 11-3-2006.
EX.A12. Courier receipt dated 25-1-2006.
Ex.A13. DTDC Tracking Computer Statement.
Ex.X1. Teachers Attendance Register for the year 2006-2007.
Ex.X2. Letter dated 19-2-2006 of complainant to incharge
District Consumers Information Center, Kurnool.
Ex.X3. Letter dated 13-3-2006 of complainant to incharge District Consumers Information Center, Kurnool.
List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties:
Ex.B1. Surety/ security personal form signatures in colums prized bidder , surety No.1 and No.2 were signed by A. Mahaboob Basha, I. Venkata Subbiah, and P. Eswara Reddy respectively on 21-2-2006.
Ex.B2. Agreement of guarantee executed by sureties on 14-3-2006 in the office at Tadipatri.
Ex.B3. Promissory note dated 14-3-2006.
Ex.B4. Cash voucher for Rs.79,500 dated14-3-2006.
Ex.B5. Receipt dated 14-3-2006 received by the complainant as to the receipt of cheque bearing No.722829.
SD/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
// Certified free copy communicated under Rule 4 (10) of the
A.P.S.C.D.R.C. Rules, 1987//
Copy to:-
Complainant and Opposite parties
Copy was made ready on :
Copy was dispatched on :
