KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL No. 760/2017

JUDGMENT DATED: 28.11.2024

(Against the Order in C.C. 142/2015 of DCDRC, Kozhikode)

PRESENT:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR            : PRESIDENT

SRI. AJITH KUMAR D.                                                                 : JUDICIAL MEMBER

SRI. RADHAKRISHNAN K.R.                                                     : MEMBER

APPELLANT:

The Branch Manager, Gokulam Chits and Finance Co. Ltd., Perambra Branch, Opposite to Alankar Shopping Complex, Perambra, Kozhikode-673 525.

(By Adv. Siny M.C.)

                                                Vs.

RESPONDENT:

E.M. Sreenivas, S/o Raghavan Nambiar, Elamkoottil, Meethal, Paithodi House, Perambra P.O., Kozhikode-673 525.

          (By Adv. Shyam Padman, Adv. S. Reghukumar and

Adv. Threya J. Pillai)

JUDGMENT

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR  : PRESIDENT

The appellant is the opposite party in C.C. No. 142/2015 on the files of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kozhikode (for short “the District Commission”).  The respondent herein is the complainant before the District Commission. 

2.  The complainant was the subscriber of a chit conducted by the opposite party.  The complainant paid an amount of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) towards the first instalment of the said chit on 30.03.2013.  Thereafter, the complainant defaulted in payment of instalments. The duration of the chit was twenty months. After the completion of the period of the chit, the complainant requested the opposite party to pay the amount deposited by the complainant.  However, the opposite party did not incline to pay the amount to the complainant.  Therefore, on 05.12.2014, the complainant caused to issue a legal notice to the opposite party demanding refund of the amount paid by the complainant towards the chit.  However, the opposite party refused to refund the amount stating that 5% of the total sala was required as commission.  Since the amount deposited by the complainant was less than 5% of the total sala, the amount deposited by the complainant was not refunded by the opposite party.  In the said circumstances, the complainant alleged deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.

3.  The opposite party filed version admitting the chit and the deposit of the first instalment made by the complainant.  However, the opposite party contended that the chit was for a total sala of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakh only) and the period of the chit was twenty months.  The complainant had to pay Rs. 50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) per month for twenty months.  However, the complainant paid only one instalment.  As per the stipulation in the chit agreement, the opposite party was entitled to get 5% of the sala as foreman commission.  The foreman commission would come to Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only).  The amount deposited by the complainant was appropriated towards foreman commission and hence there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. 

4.  PW1 was examined and Exhibits A1 to A3 were marked for the complainant.  No evidence was adduced on the side of the opposite party.  After evaluating the evidence, the District Commission directed the opposite party to pay Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) to the complainant with costs of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only). Aggrieved by the said order, this appeal has been filed. 

5.  Heard.  Perused the records. 

6.  It is not disputed that the complainant deposited an amount of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) towards the first instalment of the chit conducted by the opposite party.  It is also not disputed that the complainant did not pay any further instalment towards the chit.  The chit was for a period of twenty months.  The complainant made request to the opposite party to refund the amount paid by the complainant when the period of the chit was over.  However, the opposite party was not prepared to refund the amount stating that the opposite party was entitled to get 5% of the total sala as foreman commission. 

7.  Now the question to be considered is as to whether the District Commission was justified in directing the opposite party to pay the amount to the complainant.  Sec. 30(3) of the Chit Funds Act, 1982 would provide that the contributions of any defaulting subscriber, who has not been substituted till the termination of the chit, shall be paid to him within fifteen days from the date of termination of the chit subject to such deductions as may be provided for in the chit agreement.  However, in this case, no chit agreement had been produced by the opposite party.  The opposite party did not produce any document to show that there was an agreement with the complainant and as per the said agreement, the opposite party was entitled to get 5% of the total sala as foreman commission.  In the absence of any material to show that the opposite party is entitled to get any deduction from the amount deposited by the complainant, it cannot be said that the claim of the opposite party in this regard is justifiable.  This being the fact, we find no reason to interfere with the order passed by the District Commission.

In the result, this appeal stands dismissed.  In the circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs in this judgment. 

The statutory deposit made by the appellant shall be given to the respondent, to be adjusted/credited towards the amount ordered by the District Commission, on proper acknowledgement. 

JUSTICE B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR: PRESIDENT

                                                                  AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER

                                                                        RADHAKRISHNAN K.R.  : MEMBER

jb