D.o.F:10/12/2008 D.o.O:25/02/2010 IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD CC.280/08 Dated this, the 25th day of February 2010. PRESENT SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT SMT.P.RAMADEVI : MEMBER SMT.P.P.SYAMALADEVI : MEMBER Rajan.K, S/o Late Koran,Petty Trader : Complainant Pallayil House, Po.Chandragiri kasaragod (Adv.K.Kumaran Nair,,Kasaragod) .A.Vijayarajan, S/o K.Kannan, Business man R/at Prabhalayam Mudiyakkal , : Opposite parties .Po.Bekal,Kasaragod (Subash Bozz.V.M,Adv,Kasaragod) ORDER SMT.P.RAMADEVI : MEMBER The facts of the complainant in brief are as follows: That the opposite party was conducting some firms, which were engaged in accepting deposits from the public and lending money to them. He was also conducting chitty cum deposit schemes. The complainant has joined in three such chitty cum deposit scheme conducted by the opposite parties. As per the first scheme if a subscriber deposits an amount of Rs.2000/- per month for 60 months then the opposite party has to repay Rs.170, 000/-. For the 2nd scheme if Rs.1500/- is deposited per month for a continuous period of 16 months, the subscriber will get an amount of Rs.30, 000/- and as per the 3rd scheme if the subscriber deposits an amount of Rs.750/- per month for 16 months he will get back an amount of Rs.20, 000/-. On joining of the above three schemes the opposite party issued 3 passbooks to the complainant. As per the terms of the scheme, the monthly subscription was allowed to be paid in small installments within the month. The complainant had remitted the monthly instalments in two chitty till the month of March 2008 and for the other chitty the payment was made till February 2008. In the month of 2008 rumors were spread that the financial activities done by the opposite party were illegal and that he was not repaying the matured deposits. Therefore, the complainant stopped the payments towards the chitty. At that time complainant deposited Rs. 57650/-in to to. The branch office of the firm at Kasaragod was closed within a week of the above said rumors. Then the complainant approached the opposite party’s head office at Palakkunnu and asked the amount. Then, the opposite party promised the complainant that the amount due to him with interest will be paid on or before 1/6/08. But after a few days the head office at Palakkunnu also closed and the opposite party was not available in the locality. Hence the complaint is filed for necessary relief. 2. On receipt of the summons from the Forum the opposite party appeared through his counsel and filed version denying all the allegations made in the complaint. The opposite party taken a contention that the transactions between him and the complainant are commercial in nature and it is not maintainable before this Forum. The opposite party further contended that the entries shown in the passbooks were incorrect and forged and the complainant has not made payments shown in the passbooks. According to him, the complainant was a chronic defaulter and after a few months he stopped the payment of chit premium. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed. 3. The evidence in this case consists of the evidence of PW1 the complainant and Exts.A1 to A3 were marked. Complainant was cross-examined by the counsel for opposite party. Opposite party has not adduced any oral or documentary evidence. 4. On going the above facts the following points are raised for considerations: 1. Whether the complaint is maintainable 2. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. 5. The first issue raised by the counsel for opposite party is regarding the maintainability of the complaint. According to him the transaction between complainant and opposite party was purely a commercial transaction. Here the opposite party is conducting the business of accepting deposits from the public and giving loans to them. It is purely a banking transaction the depositors as well as the loanees are consumers as per banking and other financial institutions who are doing the same business. This is a type of banking business hence the complainant is a consumer and therefore the complaint is maintainable. 6. The second issue regarding the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party that the complainant has not joined in three chits cum deposits schemes conducted by the opposite party. According to opposite party the complainant was a chronic defaulter and has not paid the chit amount promptly. But the opposite party has not adduced any evidence before the Forum to prove that the complainant was a chronic defaulter in making the payments or he has no evidence that the entries made in the passbooks were concocted. Hence we are of the view that there is deficiency in service on the party of the opposite party and the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs. In the result, the complaint is allowed and the opposite party is directed to pay Rs.57650/- to the complainant being the amount deposited with interest at the rate of 10% per annum from 1/4/2008 till payment and also directed to pay Rs.3000/- towards the cost of the proceedings. Time for compliance is limited to 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT ExtsA1 to A3 – pass books PW1-K.Rajan-complainant eva/
......................K.T.Sidhiq
......................P.P.Shymaladevi
......................P.Ramadevi | | 
