A.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

HYDERABAD.

FA  1485/2007  against C.C. 112/2005, Dist. Forum-I, Hyderabad

Between:

M/s.  Sri Balaji Real Estates

H.No. 16-2-702/2/C & 703/1 to 4

Malakpet, Hyderabad

Rep. by its Managing Director

N. Ashok Kumar.                                       ***                         Appellant/

                                                                                                Complainant.

                                                                   And

G.P.R.  Chits & Finance Pvt. Ltd.

H.No. 6-3-788/32/2

II Floor, Main Road

Ameerpet, Hyderabad

Rep. by its Managing Director.                   ***                         Respondent/

                                                                                                Op.

Counsel for the Appellant:                          M/s. V. Ranga Reddy

Counsel for the Resps:                                M/s. Gopi Rajesh & Associates.

CORAM:

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D. APPA RAO, PRESIDENT

&

                 SMT. M. SHREESHA, MEMBER

WEDNESDAY, THIS THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND TEN

Oral Order: (Per Hon’ble Justice D. Appa Rao, President)

                                                          ***

1)                 This is an appeal preferred by the complainant against the order of the Dist. Forum  in disallowing a part of the claim.

2)                 The case of the complainant in brief is that he joined in a chit for Rs. 10 lakhs   conducted  by  the  respondent payable in 50  instalments  @ Rs. 20,000/- per month.    He enrolled as subscriber in the month of December, 2001 in the chit group no. GL 17Q/2 for an amount of Rs. 10 lakhs   In all he paid 34 instalments out of 50 instalments.    While so, when his name was not included in the draw of lots, when questioned, the respondent gave lame excuses.   He issued a cheque bearing No.  566940 Dt. 31.10.2004 for Rs. 13,000/- towards 35^th instalment.  He learnt through newspapers and electronic media that the respondent was playing fraud and was not making payments either to the depositors or prized bidders.    The cheques issued by him were bounced.    The criminal cases were registered against him.   When he contacted, he could not get any reply and in fact the office was closed abruptly.    Thereupon he instructed his banker not to honour cheque issued by him.    However, he intended  to pay remaining amount provided the respondent continued  the chit.    However, it did not  do so, and therefore he issued notice calling upon him to pay the amount.    The notice was returned with postal endorsement ‘Not claimed’   He also made a complaint to the Station House Officer, Punjagutta to take necessary action.    He was also entitled to get refund of Rs. 6, 80,000/- besides dividends, compensation and costs. 

3)                The respondent/opposite party resisted the case.   It alleged that the complaint was pre-mature as the period of chit would end in 2/2006.    The allegation that he was playing fraud and not making payment and that there were  criminal cases against him are irrelevant.    Equally the allegation that the office was closed.  In fact he did not receive any notice.  The said chit was not terminated and in fact it would be closed in the month of 2/2006.    He has no right to claim the amount.  Therefore, he prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs. 

4)                The complainant in proof of his case filed his affidavit evidence and got Exs. A1 to A5 marked while the respondent did not file any documents. 

5)                The Dist. Forum after considering the evidence placed on record  allowed the complaint  in part  directing the respondent  to pay Rs. 2,02,839/-  together with compensation of Rs. 10,000/- and costs of Rs. 2,000/-.

6)                Aggrieved by the said decision, the complainant preferred the appeal contending that the Dist. Forum did not appreciate either the facts or law in correct perspective. It ought to have seen that he had paid Rs.   4,60,247/-. Obviously, a mistake in calculation, an award was passed for part of the amount.  He was entitled to the dividend as the respondent himself abruptly closed the chit.    Therefore he prayed that the appeal be allowed by granting Rs. 6, 80,000/- together with dividend, compensation and costs.

7)                The point that arises for consideration is whether the order of the Dist. Forum is vitiated by mis-appreciation of fact or law?

8)                It is an undisputed fact that the appellant/complainant  joined in a chit for Rs. 10 lakhs   conducted  by  the  respondent payable in 50  instalments  @ Rs. 20,000/- per month.    He enrolled as subscriber in the month of December, 2001 in the chit group no. GL 17Q/2 for an amount of Rs. 10 lakhs evidenced under Ex. A1.  It is also not in dispute that he paid 34 instalments vide xerox copy of pass book Ex. A2.  The complainant asserts that  when he issued a cheque  on  31.10.2004 for Rs. 13,000/-  payable towards 35^th instalment, he learnt from newspapers enclosed to the complaint  that the respondent had defaulted in payment of amount  to various depositors  and that  particularly  ‘Deccan Chronicle’  on  November 3, 2004  quoted “ GPR chits in deep trouble’    

 It reads  “GPR chits and Finance, one of the city’s major chit finance companies with a turnover of over Rs. 100 crores fell into a deep crisis on Wednesday, leaving its 7000 odd customers in the lurch.”    On that  the complainant directed the bank not to honour the cheque and issued notice to the respondent under Ex. A3.  Evidently, the said letter was returned with postal endorsement ‘Not claimed’.  Though the respondent denied that he ever denied to receive the registered notice, the fact remains that  he did not claim to receive the notice evidenced  under  Ex. A4 postal endorsement ‘Not claimed’.    Except a bald denial, he could not establish that he ran the chit up till 2/2006.   

 9)               The respondent did not file copies of accounts to show that dividends have been paid and that the complainant would not be entitled due to non-payment of remaining instalments.    Equally he could not show that he could collect instalments from various  subscribers in support of his version.    He did not choose to file any document to controvert the irrefutable documents Exs. A1 to A5 filed by the complainant.    The Dist. Forum obviously went wrong in stating that the complainant had paid only Rs. 2, 02,839/- a mistake in  calculation  of  the  claim made by the complainant.   When the complainant had filed Xerox copy of pass book Ex. A2 to  prove that he had paid 34 instalments  which the Dist. Forum agreed, there is no reason why  it had awarded Rs. 2,02,839/-.  When the respondent itself had committed default, the question of refusing payment of dividend, bonus and other benefits cannot be denied, more so, when the complainant could prove that the respondent did not continue the chit.    The contention that the claim was pre-mature has no meaning when he could not prove that he ran the chit till completion of chit period.    Necessarily the complainant is entitled to the amount claimed. 

10)              In the result the appeal is allowed in part directing the respondent to pay Rs. 4,60,247/-  besides Rs. 2,02,839/-  granted by the Dist. Forum  together with interest @ 9% p.a., from the date of complaint viz., 18.1.2005 till the date of realization.  However, the bonus that was agreed to be paid by the respondent was neither mentioned in the complaint nor the respondent stated so.    In view of the above, we are unable to award any amount towards bonus.   A compensation of Rs. 10,000/- that  was granted by the Dist. Forum which we feel reasonable in the circumstances of the case.    The complainant is also entitled to costs of Rs. 2,000/- in the appeal.   Time for compliance four weeks. 

1)      _______________________________

PRESIDENT                 

2)      ________________________________

MEMBER            

Dt.  31.  03.  2009.

*pnr

“UP LOAD – O.K.”