The complainant’s case in brief is as follows: The complainant had subscribed one kuri conducted by the respondents. The said kuri was started on August 1997 had a total sala of Rs.6,00,000/- and 60 trimonthly instalments at Rs.10,000/- each. The complainant had remitted 22 instalments upto 8.2.03 and he could not continue to remit further instalments due to illness. When he approached the respondent kuri company to clear the dues it was seen closed and he could not remit the dues. The complainant approached the respondents many times and requested to refund the kuri amount. But there was no remedy. Hence the complaint. 

 

            2. The respondents filed a counter to the following effect that the respondents admit the subscribing of kuri. But the kuri in question terminates only by 9.5.2012 and the total amount actually paid is only Rs.1,15,599/-. The complainant had defaulted the kuri after 22 instalments and forfeiture closure came into operation and a defaulter is not entitled to auction dividend and fixed discounts past, present and future and the defaulter is only entitled to get the actual amount paid by him only after 9.5.2012. Hence the complaint is premature and there is no cause of action until the kuri gets terminated on 9.5.2012. Hence dismiss the complaint.

 

            3. The points for consideration are:

(1)   Is the complainant liable to get back the kuri amount?

(2)   Other reliefs and costs.

 

            4. The evidence consists of Exts. P1 and R1. No oral evidence adduced by both.

 

            5. Points-1 & 2: The complainant’s case is that he had remitted Rs.2,20,000/- by 22 instalments at the rate of Rs.10,000/- each in the kuri conducted by the respondents. As he fell ill he could not remit the instalments for some time. But when he approached the respondent kuri company to remit the dues in December 2004, he could not remit the dues as the kuri company was seen closed. According to the complainant, he is entitled to get back Rs.2,20,000/- which he paid by instalments. The counter is that the complainant remitted only 22 instalments in the kuri and committed default. The complainant is entitled to get back the actual amount remitted after deducting foreman’s commission after the termination of the kuri on 9.5.2012. Ext. P1 kuri passbook shows that the complainant had remitted 22 instalments and the 22^nd instalment was remitted on 6.2.03. The respondents denied the closing of the kuri company. They produced Ext. R1 copy of the monthly kuri personal ledger to prove that the kuri continued after 22^nd instalment. On a perusal of Ext. R1 it is seen that after 28 instalments the business was not conducted. It is a copy of document kept by respondents and was in their sole custody. It would show that after 28^th instalment there is no entry of remittances and means that the business was not conducted after that time. The complaint was filed on 17.2.2006. So it is beyond doubt that the respondent kuri company was not functioning even at the time of filing the complaint. Hence it is baseless to say that the complainant is entitled to get the amount only after the termination of the kuri on 9.5.2012. The respondents are liable to return the amount remitted by the complainant.

 

            6. In the result, the complaint is allowed and the respondents are directed to pay back to the complainant Rs.2,20,000/- (Rupees two lakhs and twenty thousand only) the amount remitted as per Ext. P1 passbook with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 8.2.03 till realization and Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand only) as costs within two months.

 

             Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, this the 31st day of October 2009.