By Smt. Padmini Sudheesh, President:

 

            The case of complainant is that he was a kuri subscriber of the first respondent by ticket No.56. the kuri was commenced from 9.4.99 and the complainant had remitted 50 instalments out of 60 instalments. The total sala of the kuri was Rs.1,50,000/-. After the remittance of 50th instalment the first respondent stopped the kuri transaction and the complainant could not remitted the remaining instalments. Subsequently the complainant demanded the remitted amount with interest. But the respondents had not returned. So the complainant sent lawyer notice. But no reply and no remedy.   This is a deficiency in service on the part of respondents. Hence this complaint to get back the amount shown in the passbook.

 

            2. In the counter respondents-1 and 2 state that the respondents never stopped the kuri business. The complainant was a defaulter and not entitled to get dividends and is entitled to get only the actual remitted amount. There is no deficiency in service and prays to dismiss the complaint.

 

            3. Other respondents filed statements adopting the counter of respondents-1 and 2. 

 

            4. The points for consideration are:

(1)   Is there any deficiency in service?

(2)   If so reliefs and costs.

 

            5. The evidence consists of Ext. P1 on the part of complainant and Ext. R1 on the part of respondents.

 

            6. Point No.1: The case of complainant is that he was a subscriber of the 9^th day monthly kuri conducted by the first respondent firm and he had remitted 50 instalments. He has produced Ext. P1 passbook to show the remittances. It shows that there were 60 instalments altogether and he had remitted only 50 instalments. According to the complainant he could not remit the remaining instalments due to the non-functioning of the finance company. Since there was no default up to 50 instalments it can be considered that the non-payment of the remaining instalments was due to the non-functioning of the first respondent firm. The respondent produced Ext. R1 to show the termination of the kuri. Since it was produced on the part of respondent, we are not in a position to believe it straightaway. There are so many other case also before the Forum like this and we are in the opinion that the non-payment was due to the non-functioning of the kuri. So the respondent is not entitled to get the foreman commission. 

 

            7. The respondents in their counter state that the complainant is not entitled for dividends. This view is unsustainable since the dividend is a right of subscribers.

 

            8. In the result, complaint is allowed and the respondents are directed to return the amount shown in Ext. P1 passbook to the complainant with interest at the rate of 12% per annum for each instalment and 6% interest from today till realization. The respondents are further directed to pay Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand only) as costs to the complainant. Comply the order within one month.

           

            Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, this the 30th day of March 2009.