Date of Filing : 28.06.2019
Date of Disposal: 06.09.2022
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
THIRUVALLUR
BEFORE TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, M.A.,M.L, Ph.D (Law) .…. PRESIDENT
THIRU. J.JAYASHANKAR, B.A, B.L. ..… MEMBER-I
THIRU.P.MURUGAN,M.Com., ICWA(Inter)., B.L., ....MEMBER-II
CC. No.27/2019
THIS TUESDAY, THE 06th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022
Mrs.V.Radhika, W/o.G.Varadhan,
No.12, Ranganathan Street,
Selaiyur, Chennai 600 073. ……Complainant.
//Vs//
1.D.Murugan, S/o.Devaraja Naicker,
2.M.Sankari, W/o.Murugan,
3.M.Angathan, S/o.Murugan,
1 to 3 are residing at
Chinna Street, Thirumanikuppam Village,
Thirupandhiyur Post,
Thiruvallur District -602 108. …..opposite parties.
Counsel for the complainant : Mr.G.Gopalakrishnan, Advocate.
Counsel for the opposite parties : Mr.K.Varathan, Advocate.
This complaint is coming before us on various dates and finally on 12.08.2022 in the presence of Mr.G.Gopalakrishnan Advocate counsel for the complainant and Mr.K.Varathan Advocate counsel for the opposite parties upon perusing the documents and evidences produced by both parties this Commission delivered the following:
ORDER
PRONOUNCED BY TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, PRESIDENT.
This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties in repayment of the chit amount along with a prayer to pay a sum of Rs.6,95,000/- principal chit amount with interest at 12% per annum on Rs.4,70,000/- from 02.03.2017 till date of payment and to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony and hardship caused to the complainant and to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards cost of the proceedings to the complainant.
Sum and substance of the complaint:-
It was the case of the complainant that the 1st opposite party was doing business in conducting auction chit for years and that the complainant joined in a monthly auction chit of Rs.20,000/- for 25 months for a total chit amount of Rs.5,00,000/-. The complainant thus paid all the subscriptions regularly and a total sum of Rs.4,70,000/- was due and payable by the 1st opposite party as per the terms and conditions. As the 1st opposite party expressed his inability to pay the same due to some family circumstances had offered to execute a deed of assurance undertaking to pay the said amount with interest at the rate of 2%. The opposite parties 2 & 3 are the wife and son of the 1st opposite party and along with the 1st opposite party had jointly executed a guarantee letter of undertaking to settle the amount in the event of any untoward incident happened to the 1st opposite party. As the 1st opposite party did not honoured his commitment the complainant issued a legal notice dated 04.04.2019 demanding Rs.6,95,000/- i.e., Rs.4,70,000/- towards principal amount and Rs.2,25,000/- towards interest. The opposite party sent a reply with concocted false stories and hence aggrieved the present complaint was filed for the following reliefs mentioned below.
To pay a sum of Rs.6,95,000/- principal chit amount with interest at 12% per annum on Rs.4,70,000/- from 02.03.2017 till date of payment;
To pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony and hardship caused to the complainant;
To pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards cost of the proceedings to the complainant.
Defence of the opposite parties:-
The opposite party filed written version denying the chit transaction and disputed the maintainability of the complaint before the Consumer Commission. It was submitted that the transaction involved in the present complaint has to be dealt only under Chit Fund Act 1982 as private chit transaction without any due registration between the parties was outside the act and is not permissible under the law. It was submitted that the deed of assurance entered on 02.03.2017 will not provide any cause of action for the complaint to be filed and hence there was also delay in filing the complaint. Further the opposite parties 2 & 3 are not necessary parties to the complaint. The opposite party also submitted that under the chit transaction only a sum of Rs.1,56,240/- is payable by the opposite party and provided the particulars of the chit transaction transpired between the complainant and the 1st opposite party. Thus contending that the present complaint is not maintainable as it has been filed without jurisdiction sought for the dismissal of the complaint.
On the side of complainant proof affidavit was filed and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A3 were marked on their side. Though sufficient opportunities were provided to the opposite parties they failed to submit any proof affidavit. Finally on 23.05.2022 the counsel for the opposite party represented that he is not willing to file any proof affidavit as he had dispute with regard to the jurisdiction and hence the evidence on the side of opposite parties was closed and liberty was given to the opposite party to raise the objection with regard to the jurisdiction in the written and oral arguments.
Points for consideration:-
Whether the present complaint is maintainable before this commission?
Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties as alleged by the complainant?
If so to what reliefs the complainant is entitled?
Point No.1
On the side of the complainant following documents were filed in support of her allegations;
Deed of assurance given by the 1st opposite party and guarantee letter of opposite parties 2 & 3 dated 02.03.2017 was marked as Ex.A1;
Legal notice issued by the complainant to the opposite parties dated 04.04.2019 was marked as Ex.A2;
Reply notice from the opposite party to the complainant dated 28.04.2019 was marked as Ex.A3;
We heard the oral arguments adduced by the both parties and perused the written arguments filed by them and documents submitted by the complainant. As the opposite party had taken preliminary objection with regard to the maintainability of the complaint on the ground of jurisdiction, this commission feels it proper to decide the said issue as the preliminary issue before going into the merits of the complaint. Whether the complaint involving chit transactions could be decided by the Consumer Commission was decided by the NCDRC in Narinder Kumar & Others Vs Sanjiv Kumar in RPNo.299/2000 wherein the said issue has been discussed and it was finally held that the Consumer Court being a quasi-judicial body could decide the issue as bar provided under section 3 of the Chit Fund Act that no Civil Court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or other proceedings in respect of any dispute referred to in Sub-section (1).". Further it is the view of the commission that Under Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Act) provisions of the Act are in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. Further our view is supported by decision rendered by the Karnataka High Court in Writ Petition No.17045/2014 between the M/s.Ragchand Associates Vs Sriram Chits (Karnataka) Private Limited dated 16.11.2015 wherein the issue related to Chit transactions was held to be maintainable before consumer forum in their lordships word follows:
This petition coming on for orders regarding maintainability, it is noticed that the present petition is filed against an order passed in an appeal, whereby the appellate authority having concluded that the dispute was not maintainable under the Chit Funds Act, 1982, has however proceeded to grant certain reliefs to the petitioner, which was irregular. Therefore, the petitioner being aggrieved by that portion of the order holding that the dispute was not maintainable cannot also be considered. Accordingly, the petition is rejected.
2. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner would point out that there may be remedy available to the petitioner before the Consumer Forum as held by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, in the case of Narinder Kumar and Others vs. Sanjiv Kumar, III(2001) CPJ 27 (NC). Therefore, the learned Counsel would seek liberty of this court to approach the State Consumer Commission insofar as any remedy that may be available to him and would submit that if this court does not grant such liberty, the question of limitation would arise before the said Forum in any proceedings that he may initiate. Since the petitioner was proceeding bona fide before this court in the belief that it was the appropriate remedy and since this court has disposed of this petition at this point of time, and though the petition is of the year 2014, it is appropriate that the petitioner be granted such liberty.
Thus we could safely hold that the present complaint was maintainable before this commission as it is admitted by both parties that the issue involved relates to chit transaction and only dispute is with regard to quantum of money. Thus we answer the point accordingly.
Point No.2:
It was an admitted fact by the opposite party that the complainant had entered into chit transaction for a total amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and that the monthly premium amount was Rs.20,000/-. Even in the written version it was admitted by the opposite party that they are liable to pay only an amount of Rs.1,61,000/-against the amount claim by the complainant of Rs.4,70,000/-. In such circumstances we perused the document Ex.A1 assurance given by the 1st opposite party along with his wife and son to the complainant wherein he clearly admitted that they are liable to pay an amount of Rs.4,70,000/- within six months with 2% interest. The said deed was not disputed by the 1st opposite party and hence the contention by the opposite party that there are only liable to pay a sum of Rs.1,61,000/- cannot be accepted by this commission. In this circumstances we direct the 1st opposite party to pay principal amount of Rs.4,70,000/- to the complainant. Thus receiving the chit premium every month on assurance that the entire amount will be paid after the completion of chit but denying the same by the opposite parties amounted to clear deficiency in service and this commission holds that the 1st opposite party has committed deficiency in service in not repaying the chit amount. Thus the point answered accordingly in favour of the complainant.
Point No.3:
With regard to the relief to be granted we are of the view that as per Ex.A1 the 1st opposite party has agreed to pay a principal amount of Rs.4,70,000/- with 2% interest. We are of the view that the 1st opposite party is liable to pay Rs.4,70,000/- but without interest. We also award a sum of Rs.10,000/- to be given to the complainant for the mental agony and hardship suffered by the complainant and also we award Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses to the complainant.
In the result, the complaint is dismissed against the 2nd and 3rd opposite parties and partly allowed against the 1st opposite party directing him
a)to pay a sum of Rs.4,70,000/- (Rupees four lakhs seventy thousand only) within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order;
b) to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) towards compensation for mental agony caused to the complainant;
c) to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards litigation expenses to the complainant.
d) Amount in clause (a) to be paid within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order failing which an interest of 6% will be levied on the said amount from the date of complaint till realization.
Dictated by the President to the steno-typist, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 06th day of September 2022.
-Sd- -Sd- -Sd-
MEMBER-II MEMBER-I PRESIDENT
List of document filed by the complainant:-
Ex.A1 02.03.2017 Deed of assurance given by the 1st opposite party and guarantee letter of opposite parties 2 &3. Xerox
Ex.A2 04.04.2019 Legal notice issued by the complainant to the opposite parties. Xerox
Ex.A3 28.04.2019 Reply notice given by the opposite parties to the complainant. Xerox
List of documents filed by the opposite parties:-
Nil
-Sd- -Sd- -Sd-
MEMBER-II MEMBER-I PRESIDENT
