By Smt Padmini Sudheesh, President <br /> <br /> The case of the petitioner is as follows:<br /> <br /> The petitioner has subscribed a kuri which is conducted by the 1st respondent firm and the kuri is to start on every 3rd day of English Calendar with sala of Rs.25,000/-. The chitty subscription number is 5. The petitioner has to pay Rs.500/- per month as subscription amount from 3/1/1996. The kuri is proposed to be completed on 3/1/2000. An agent of the 1st respondent firm used to come and collect the subscription amount from the petitioner’s house every month. The petitioner has paid the subscription up to the end of kuri period regularly. Altogether an amount of Rs.23,000/- with interest which is the total amount earlier deducting the kuri commission is due to the petitioner from the respondent firm. When the petitioner went to the 1st respondent firm to get the money back it is understood that the firm was closed by the respondents. The petitioner demanded the money individually from the 2 to 4 partners. Lawyer notice also sent. But money is not returned. Hence this complaint.<br /> The Counter of Respondent2 to 4 is as : <br /> 2. These respondents are not the partners of the firm. The duration of the disputed kuri was up to 3/2/2000. The petitioner has remitted the amount only up to 3/4/1996. After the duration amount has returned to all the subscribers. The petitioner has not paid Rs.23,000/- in the firm. So he is not entitled for the amount. The petitioner has another kuri and he has prized that kuri and a Cheque for Rs.23,000/- has issued to the petitioner. Towards that kuri nothing is remitted and that amount is due from the petitioner. If any amount is found to be paid by these respondents to the petitioner, that amount is to be set off towards the kuri number 4. The Managing Partner Sri.Sethumadhavan and the petitioner are friends. If they made any document after colluding to show that entire kuri amount is paid by the petitioner it is not applicable to these respondents. Reply notice was sent stating the true facts. The amount paid by the petitioner had forfeited towards the foreman commission. There are criminal cases pending against the said Sethumadhavan. Receipt had issued to the complainant for the payments. He is only entitled for the amount shown in the pass book. This requires elaborate evidence, hence refer to Civil Court and dismiss this complaint.<br /> 3. 1st respondent remained exparte.<br /> 4. The points for consideration are :<br /> 1) Whether the complainant is entitled for the amount as prayed ?<br /> 2) Whether any deficiency in service ?<br /> 3) Relief and costs ?<br /> <br /> 5. The evidence consists of Exhibits P1 to P4 and Exhibits R1 to R4. No other evidence.<br /> <br /> 6.Points : As per kuri No.5, there is an amount of Rs.28,140/- was due from the respondents. Exhibit P1 is the pass book which affirms the case of petitioner. But in the version respondents 2 to 4 stated that there was another kuri by the petitioner vide No.4 and he has got the prize and Rs.23,000/- had paid to the petitioner by cheque. Exhibit R4 is the kuri agreement which shows that an amount of Rs.25,000/- had received by the petitioner. Towards that kuri, 47 instalments have to be paid. There is no document to show that whether this kuri amount has paid or not. There is no whisper about this kuri in the complaint. In the counter respondents 2 to 4 had stated about the kuri No.4. But no steps were taken by the petitioner to convince the Forum regarding the payments towards that kuri. It shows that kuri still remains unpaid. The petitioner’s claim is for Rs.23,000/-and interest from 3/1/2000. The kuri agreement is executed on 8/4/1996. As per Exhibit P1 complainant is entitled to get the amount sought for. But the amount due as per Exhibit R4 has to be paid by the complainant. So the amount the respondents are entitled to receive from the petitioner is directed to set off against the petitioner’s demand.<br /> <br /> 7. In the result this complaint is dismissed and the parties are directed to suffer the costs.<br /> <br /> Dictated to the Confdl. Asst., transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open forum this the 29th day of July 2008.<br />