By Smt. Padmini sudheesh, President The case of the complainant is that she was a kuri subscriber of respondents and joined in the 9th day quarterly kuri vide pass book No.T.No.178. The kuri having 60 instalments commenced on 9/8/1997 and will terminate on 9/5/2012. She had paid the 22nd instalment. The payments were endorsed in the pass book. She had paid a total amount of Rs.1,12,599.17/- as kuri instalments. The last payment was made on 9/11/2002. Thereafter the respondents had closed the firm in February 2004. So she could not pay the kuri amount. She is entitled for the amount. Hence this complaint. 2. The counter is that the petitioner paid Rs.1,12,599/- for 22 instalments of kuri in question. The petitioner defaulted the kuri after 22nd instalment on her own fault. The kuri terminates only on 9/5/2012. The petitioner is entitled to get the actual amount paid less foreman commission only on 9/5/2012. Foremans commission is Rs.40,000/-. So the petitioner is entitled for Rs.74,099 on 9/5/2012. There is no cause of action prior to 9//5/2012. The petition is premature and hence liable to be dismissed. The firm has not stopped kuri functioning. The petitioner defaulted payment due to her own fault. Hence she is liable for all the consequent loss. The petitioner illegally demanded money prior to 9/5/2012 due date. Hence it was rightly declined. There is no deficiency in service. There is absolutely no scope for interest. She had forfeited all her nights. She is entitled for the amount only on 9/5/2012. Hence dismiss. 3. The points for consideration are 1)Is there any deficiency in service ? 2) If so, reliefs and costs ? 4. The evidence consists of Exhibits P1 and Ext. R1 series. 5. Points : Complainant had remitted Rs.1,12,599.17/- towards the kuri amount. The payment was entered in the pass book. The kuri has 60 instalments and 22 instalments were paid by the complainant. There after the firm had stopped functioning on February 2004. So she demanded for the amount, but not paid. According to the respondents the kuri will terminate only on 2012. So the petitioner is entitled for the amount only on 2012. The respondents claims the foreman commission also. Complainant had remitted amount only for 22 instalments. After that she could not remit the amount. The only reason was closing the firm. The firm was closed on February 2004. So the subscriber was not in a position to pay the amount. The contention of the respondents that the complainant is entitled for the amount only on 2012 is not maintainable. Only because of their fault complainant was abstained from payment. The kuri did not continue by the respondents. So they are not entitled for the foreman commission also. The copy of personal ledger is produced by the firm. In which it can be seen that the complainant had paid for 22 instalments and others paid for 28 instalments up to 9/5/04. After that what occurred is not mentioned. It is to be concluded that at that time the firm was stopped its function. There is deficiency in service on the part of respondent by non payment of the paid amount after closing the firm. Hence the complainant is entitled for the claim amount. 6. In the result complaint is allowed and the respondents are directed to return Rs.1,12,599/- (Rupees One lakh twelve thousand five hundred and ninety nine only) with interest @ 12% from 9/11/02 and 6% from today. Also directed to pay Rs.1,500/- (Rupees One thousand and five hundred only) towards costs. Comply the order within two months. Dictated to the Confdl. Asst., transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum this the 25th day of August 2008.
