KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL NO. 356/03 JUDGMENT DATED : 30/7/09 PRESENT:- SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER 1. Arjun Amaravathi Chits Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by its Manager, Mr. M.Venugopal The Kerala Electronic Trade Association Building 1st Floor, Door No.39/1803, Chittoor Road (South), Ernakulam, : APPELLANTS 2. Arjun Amaravathi Chits Pvt. Ltd., Amaravathi Buildings, 22 A, Desikar Street , Vadapalani, Chennai. (By Adv. Robin Thomas Philip & Biju Juseph) Vs A.M.Joy, proprietor of Deepak Garments M.G.Road, Ernakulam. : RESPONDENT (By Adv.S.R.Dayanandaprabhu) JUDGMENT SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER This appeal prefers from the order passed by the CDRF, Ernakulam in the file of OP 161/02. The appellants are the opposite parties who prefers this appeal from the above impugned order. 2. In short the complaint joined a chitty conducted by the opposite parties. He paid Rs.1,600/- towards registration fee and obtained to two tickets of chits @ Rs.25,000/- each. The chit value was Rs.5,00,000/- each and it was to be paid in 20 instalments. According to the complainant, he was told by the 1st opposite party that the chit amount would be paid in one month after joining the chit, but no such payment was made and he was informed by the opposite parties that the amount would be paid only after 6 or 7 instalments. Therefore the complainant did not continue the chit. This case is that the opposite parties did not return the deposit made by him despite requests made for the same. He did not make further payment of the instalments as the opposite parties did not pay the amount to him as promised. Thus the litigation of the complainant in the complaint. 3. The opposite parties appeared and filed their written version. They contended that the Forum has no jurisdiction to deal with the complaint. But the opposite parties are admitted that they received Rs.1,600/- + 50,000/- from the complainant. According to them, they had not made any promise that the amount would be paid after paying the 1st installment. It is stated that the opposite parties are entitled for commission at the rate of 5% and Rs.50,000/- paid by the complainant has to be adjusted towards the commission. The opposite parties want the complaint to be dismissed. 4. From the part of the complainant there are 7 exhibits marked as Ext.A1 to A7. No documents were produced and marked from the side of the opposite parties. 5. The Forum below framed their issues they are (1) Whether this Forum has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint? (2) Whether there was any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties and (3) Reliefs and costs.? 6. The Forum below found that this complaint is maintainable accordance with the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. So there is no question of the jurisdiction. It is admitted that the opposite party received Rs.1,600/- towards registration fee and Rs.50,000/- towards instalments. The case of the opposite party is that they are entitled for 5% of amount as commission and Rs.50,000/- paid with the complainant is to be appropriated towards the commission. The chit value of Rs.50,000/- each and the opposite parties collected the commission based on the chit value. The complainant has paid only Rs.50,000/- towards instalments and the opposite parties are entitled for commission. The Forum below found that the opposite parties to have 5% of Rs.50,000/- as per commission and direct them to return the balance amount. The Forum below has not ordered to refund the registration fee to the complainant. The Forum below allowed the complaint and direct the opposite parties to refund Rs.47,500 (50,000 - 2.500) within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The appellant prefers this appeal from the impugned order passed by the Forum below. In this day this appeal came before this Commission for final hearing. The counsel for the appellant is present and there is no representation for the respondent. The counsel for the appellants submitted on the grounds of appeal memorandum that the order passed by the Forum below is illegal and without observing the principles of law and evidence. The counsel submitted that the opposite party admitted that he is a defaulter and subscriber is liable to pay 5% commission of sala value of the chitty amount towards the Forman’s commission and thereafter the amount paid by the respondent is to be forfeited by the Forman towards the commission. He further submitted that the Forman Commission as 5% is only to sala value of the chitty and not on the amount paid by the respondent (for the amount already paid by the complainant). In otherwords, the complainant is only entitled to get this commission only after the maturity of chitty. He pointed out that the Chitty Act allowed the Forman is entitled to get commission of 5% of the entire sala amount and the defaulted subscriber is only entitled to get the repayment of the amount paid by him only after the maturity date of the chitty. By permitting the entire evidence adduced by the complainant it is seen that he paid Rs.50,000/- on two tickets. He also paid Rs.1,600/- is registration fee. But he admitted that he is a defaulter. As per the law the complainant is entitled to get 5% commission of the amount of Rs.50,000/- paid by him only after the maturity of the chitty. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the maturity date of the chit is over. In the result this appeal is allowed with a strait modification. The opposite parties are directed to refund Rs.47,500 (50,000 – 2,500) after the maturity of the chitty. The opposite parties also directed to remit this amount to the complainant after the maturity date of the chitty. The appeal disposed accordingly. Both parties are directed to suffer their respective costs. M.K.ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER M.V.VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER PK.
......................SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA
......................SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN | | 
