BEFORE THE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD.
F.A.No.971/2007 AGAINST C.C.No.107/2006 DISTRICT FORUM, WEST GODAVARI AT ELURU.
Between:
M/s Shriram Chits (P) Ltd.,
Rep. by its Branch Manager,
Venkatarama Power Press Road,
Eluru-2, W.G.Dist., Appellant/
Opp.party
And
K.Lakshmi Tulasi,
W/o.K.Ramakrishna, aged about 33 years,
Near Vibhav towers,
Sathavahananagar,
Eluru, W.G.District. Respondent/
Complainant
Counsel for the Appellant: Mr.K.Maheswara Rao
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr.K.Paradhamachari
F.A.No.1484/2007 AGAINST C.C.No.107/2006 DISTRICT FORUM, WEST GODAVARI AT ELURU.
Between:
K atragaddi Lakshmi Tulasi,
W/o.Ramakrishna, aged about 32 years,
Near Vibhav towers,
Sathavahananagar,
Eluru, W.G.District. Appellant/
Complainant
And
M/s Shriram Chits (P) Ltd.,
Venkatarama Power Press Road,
Rep. by its Branch Manager,
Powerpet, Eluru-2, W.G.Dist.,
Counsel for the Appellant: Mr.K.Parandhamachari
Counsel for the Respondent:(Mr.K.Maheswara Rao)
QUORUM: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT
AND
SMT.M.SHREESHA, MEMBER
.
THURSDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF JULY,
TWO THOUSAND TEN
(Typed to the dictation of Smt.M.Shreesha, Hon’ble Member.)
***
Aggrieved by the order in C.C.No.107/2006 on the file of District Forum, West Godavari at Eluru, the opposite party preferred F.A.No.971/2007 and the complainant preferred F.A.No.1484/2007. Since both the appeals arise out of
the same C.D. they are being disposed of by a common order.
The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that complainant joined as a Member in Chit Ref.EMT. 1/5 on 23-6-2002 for Rs.10,00,000/- and the monthly instalment was Rs.25,000/- for a period of 40 months conducted by opposite party. The complainant submitted that after paying instalments from August 2002 to April, 2003 she was forced to leave the town under some unavoidable circumstances and she requested the opposite party to terminate her from the chit and refund the amount lying in her account and opposite party allowed her to close the chit and promised to refund the amount but in spite of repeated requests, they failed to refund the amount and later on when the complainant pressed for payment, they stated that the chit was not closed. On 1-6-2006 the complainant got issued a legal notice to the opposite party for which they replied on 27-6-2006 stating that the complainant has to pay an amount of Rs.12,145/- under S.C.D.F. loan. The opposite party also filed a suit against her for recovery of rs.10.450/- before the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Eluru which was numbered as O.S.No.78/2006. The opposite party stated in their reply notice that the husband of the complainant have to pay an amount of Rs.1,20,817/- to the complainant and they deducted the said amount from out of the outstanding balance of the complainant. It is the case of the complainant that she never stood as guarantor to her husband in any chit and that the opposite party filed a suit against the husband of the complainant along with guarantors for recovery of the amount of Rs.1,60,700/- before the Principal Senior Civil Judge Eluru. Hence the complaint for a direction to the opposite party to release the amount of
Rs.2,25,000/- along with interest at 24% p.a. from the date of last payment i.e. 1-5-2003 till the date of realization together with compensation of Rs.75,000/-.
Opposite party filed counter denying the allegations made in the complaint. It admitted that the complainant got issued a notice on 1-6-2006 for which it gave a suitable reply. It also admitted that they filed a suit as the complainant is liable to pay the amount due in Shriram City Union Finance Limited, Eluru for recovery of amount in O.S.No.78/2006 and the same is pending. It submitted that it categorically intimated to the complainant in respect of adjustments made against their liability in its reply notice and the complainant did not deny her liability and therefore she is not entitled to seek refund of Rs.2,25,000/- and showed her liability as follows:
Actual amount paid by complainant Rs.2,25,250-00
to opposite party
Due to breach of contract an amount
of Rs.50,000/- at 5% of value of chit
deducted. Rs. 50,000-00
-------------------
Rs.1,75,250-00
The following prized chits in the name
Of husband of complainant
Group & Date of Amount
Ticket No. payment
E1723/17 30-4-2004 57-00
E1723/17 30-4-2004 59,260-00
EMN 4/22 30-4-2004 23,284-00
ESL 6/6 30-4-2004 38,216-00 Rs.1,20,817-00
-------------------
Rs. 54,433-00
The following amounts are due
Under SCUF loans in the name
Of complainant Rs.13,145-00
The following amounts are due
Under SCUF loans in the name
Of husband of complainant Rs.41,258-00 54,403-00
---------------------
Balance Rs. 30-00
Less Notice charges Rs. 30-00
---------------------
0-00
---------------------
The opposite party submitted that as per the above account nothing is found due to the complainant and under no stretch of imagination the complainant is entitled for any amount and the suits O.S.No.78/2006 and O.S.No.18/2005 are only on the balance amounts and the complainant cannot take shelter under those suits. The opposite party submitted that the complaint is not maintainable as Rs.2,25,000/- is adjusted against the outstanding dues of the complainant and her husband and as such she is not entitled to claim interest at 24% p.a. along with compensation of Rs.75,000/- and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
Based on the evidence adduced i.e. Exs.A1 to A6 and B1 to B8 and the pleadings put forward, the District Forum allowed the complaint in part directing the opposite party to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.1,75,000/- with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of complaint till the date of realization together with costs of Rs.1,000/-.
Aggrieved by the said order, the opposite party preferred F.A.No.971/2007 and the complainant preferred F.A.No.1484/2007 Both parties filed written arguments.
It is the complainant’s case that she joined opposite party chit no.EMT1/5 on 23-6-2002, the value of the chit being Rs.10,00,000/- and the month instalment of Rs.25,000/- each for a duration of 40 months. Ex.A1 is the pass book issued by the opposite party clearly denote the payments of 9 instalments made by the complainant at the rate of Rs.25,000/- amounting to Rs.2,25,000/-. Thereafter the complainant expressed her inability for paying the remaining instalments and requested the opposite party to return the said amount of Rs.2,25,000/- but inspite of repeated requests there was no response from the opposite party and hence she got issued a legal notice vide Ex.A2 dated 01-6-2006 for which the opposite party replied vide Ex.A3 dated 27-6-2006. In their reply notice, the opposite party has contended that the complainant has written a letter that she would like to withdraw from the said chit group and requested them to refund her amounts. They stated in their reply notice that the complainant has been removed from the chit on 30-1-2004 and 5% of the value of the chit i.e. Rs.50,000/- is deducted from the amount paid by her i.e. Rs.2,25,250/- less Rs.50,000/- i.e. Rs.1,75,250/- which would be deducted from her husband chit dues. Her husband was also a member of the chit groups and was due an amount of Rs.1,20,817/- and they also state in their reply notice that the complainant is due an amount of Rs.12,145/- towards SCUF loan and her husband is also due an amount of Rs.54,403/- which is totalling to Rs.1,75,250/- and therefore there is no balance to be paid to the complainant herein.
The learned counsel for the opposite party contended that the complainant had given Ex.B7 letter as per which instructions they have deducted the amounts towards her husband dues and that there is no deficiency in service on their behalf.
We observe from the record that this is a CD pertaining to the year 2006 and it is only at the end of the proceedings that the opposite party filed an IA on 11-1-2007 to reopen the matter before the District Forum when it was posted on 12-1-2007 for orders only to receive Ex.B7 letter which is dated 27-4-2004. It is pertinent to note that on behalf of the opposite party, its Branch Manager, Mr.K.Viswanath, deposed before the District Forum admitting that Ex.B7 was not cited in Ex.A3 reply notice. To reiterate, Ex.A3 only speaks of the letter which the complainant has given seeking her withdrawal from the chit and requesting for refund of the amount and the reply notice does not state anywhere about this letter, Ex.B7 on which the opposite party is relying as a ground to deduct her amounts as against the husband’s dues. He also admits that Ex.B7 is in the handwriting of one of his staff members but cannot recollect the name but denies that it is forged. Keeping in view that Ex.B7 is not reflected in their reply notice and also that it was admittedly not written by the complainant herself but by staff member, we are of the considered view that the opposite party cannot deduct the complainant’s amount against her husband dues on the ground that it is as per her own instructions. It is also admitted that the opposite party filed the suit No.O.S.No.78/2006 as the complainant is liable to pay the amounts due to SUCL which is their sister concern. The opposite party failed to file any documentary evidence to substantiate their contention that they can exercise lien over the complainant’s amounts as against her husband’s dues in a sister concern when the complainant has pleaded all along that she never stood as a guarantor against her husband’s chit amounts in the sister concern. Therefore, the District Forum has rightly deducted 5% of the value of the chit towards foreman’s commission and allowed the balance amount i.e. Rs.1,75,000/- to be paid with interest at 9% p.a.
The complainant preferred F.A.No.1484/2007 seeking interest from 30-4-2003 i.e. the date on which the complainant was removed from the chit and also prayed for non deduction of 5% of the chit value towards foreman commission. Admittedly the complainant was removed from the chit on 30-1-2004 as per Ex.A3 reply notice. We are of the considered view that the complainant is entitled to interest at 9% p.a. on Rs.1,75,000/- from 30-1-2004 till the date of realization. However, since the chit Fund Act envisages deduction of 5% foreman’s Commission in case of refund to defaulting subscriber, we do not see any substantial reasons to interfere with that aspect of the order and we confirm the rest of the order of the District Forum.
In the result appeal, F.A.No.1484/2007 is allowed in part modifying the order of the District Forum with respect to the date of interest i.e. 9% p.a. on Rs.1,75,000/- from 30-1-2004 till the date of realization while the rest of the order of the District Forum is confirmed. For the reasons aforementioned, F.A.NO.971/2007 filed by the opposite party is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Time for compliance four weeks.
Sd/-PRESIDENT.
Sd/-MEMBER.
JM Dt.15-7-2010
