FA.No.780/2007  against C.D.No.691/2004, District Forum-I, East Godavari at Kakinada.

Between:

M/s Sri Maruthi Chits & Finance

Bhimanapali Village, Uppalaguptam (M)

East Godavari District.

Rep. by its Managing Partner

Sri Desamsetti Gowri Sankara Narayana Swamy

S/o.Satyananarayana, aged about 34 years.                                .Appellant/                                                                                                                                          Opposite party

And

Karri Vydhuryam, W/o.James Vijaya Kumar

Aged about 52 years, Occ:Service,

R/o.D.No.7-47, Narayana Rao Street,

Indrapalem, Kakinada.                                                                     Respondent/

                                                                                                            Complainant

Counsel for the Appellant:    :Mr.V.Gourisankara Rao.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 

Counsel for the Respondent: Smt.K.Swarna Seshu

                        QUORUM:SMT.M.SHREESHA, HON’BLE MEMBER.

AND

SRI K.SATYANAND, HON’BLE MEMBER.      

TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF AUGUST,

TWO THOUSAND NINE

ORAL ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri K.Satyanand, Member .)

                                                                                                                                                                                                                        ***

            This is an appeal filed by the opposite party assailing the order of the District Forum passed against it.

        The facts of the case stated briefly are as follows:

The respondent/complainant is subscriber of two chits floated by the appellant/opposite party bearing Nos. BL 54-3334 for Rs.1,00,000/- spread over 40 months with monthly subscription at the rate of Rs.2,500/- and SM 9-9 for Rs.1,50,000/- spread over 30 months with monthly subscription at the rate of Rs.5,000/-.  She claimed to have paid 22 months for the first chit and 20 instalments for the second chit.  Later the person that used to collect monthly subscription failed to turn up subsequent to 8-8-2003.  On enquiry she came to know that the opposite party closed the office and was not conducting the chit auctions and also fell in  arrears of meeting his commitments and she therefore approached the District Forum  on the ground of deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.

The complaint came to be resisted by the opposite party alleging that the complainant committed default in paying the monthly instalments subsequent to 8-8-2003 and on calculating the amount she paid towards both the chits, it emerged that she paid an amount of Rs.1,10,000/- and the said amount was  paid by it to her on 04-12-2003 leaving no dues for her to claim.  It is therefore contended that the complaint was liable to be dismissed.

In support of her case, the complainant filed her own affidavit and relied upon documents Exs.A1 to A6.  The opposite party relied upon documents marked as Exs.B1 to B5. 

On a consideration of the evidence adduced on either side, the District Forum came to the conclusion that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party exemplified by its failure to continue the business and thereby mounting up dues to the customers.  It also found that the discharge pleaded by the opposite party was false.  On the basis of these two findings, the District Forum allowed the complaint directing the opposite party to pay to the complainant Rs.1,55,000/- representing the amount paid by the complainant under two chits along with interest at 12% p.a. and also an amount of Rs.5,000/- towards compensation besides costs of Rs.2,000/-.

Aggrieved by the said order, the opposite party  filed the present appeal contending inter alia that the District Forum erred in not giving due weight to Exs.B1 and B2 and revenue receipt signed by the complainant and the ‘No due Certificate’ passed by the complainant.  It also found fault with the District Forum for dismissing the I.A.164/2004 filed by the opposite party seeking directions for sending the disputed documents for the opinion of an handwriting expert.  It is further commented that the District Forum was not right in giving relief to a defaulter not entitled for any reliefs.  It also faulted the Forum for not deducting the foreman commission.

Heard both sides.

The points that arise for consideration are 1. whether the District Forum was right in rejecting the plea of discharge pleaded on the strength of Exs.B1 and B2. 

2) Whether the complainant could successfully show deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party? 

3) Whether there are any good grounds to interfere with the order of the District Forum?

This is a very clear case in which the essential facts basically establishing the jural relationship between the complainant, a consumer and the opposite party, a financial service provider are beyond controversy.  It is not the case of the opposite party that the complainant was not otherwise entitled to get back the money paid by him by resorting to any provisions of the Chit Fund Act.  The defense of the opposite party was entirely resting upon the ground of discharge allegedly borne out from Exs.B1 and B2.  On the other hand, it is the case of the complainant that Exs.B1 and B2 were got up documents and the statements of opposite party embodied in the Insolvency Petition marked as Ex.A6 clearly disprove the genuineness of Exs.B1 and B2 which were subsequent in time to the so called discharge.  In other words, the discharge pleaded through the help of Exs.B1 and B2 was dated 4-12-2003.  On the other hand, the acknowledgement of the liability that the opposite party was owing to the complainant as borne out from Ex.A6 was dated 26-12-2003.  In other words, Ex.A6 directly nullifies the probative value of Exs.B1 and B2 even without any external aid as the opinion of the handwriting expert.  Perhaps in that view of the matter, the District Forum declined to give permission or declined to allow the opposite party to resort to a handwriting expert opinion. The basic evidence available is an admission by a party and  is the best evidence. That is very much embodied in Ex.A6, so the District Forum was right in relying upon Ex.A6 and eschewing the so called evidence tendered by way of Exs.B1 and B2.  These facts clearly show that the discharge pleaded by the opposite party was false.  This itself highly probablises the allegation of deficiency in service. Apart from that, if we go through the entire text of Ex.A6, IP proceedings, they clearly show that the opposite party was in fact neck deep in debts suggesting that the opposite party venture was in total doldrums bordering on a virtual scam.  So the finding by the District Forum of deficiency in service against the opposite party is very much justified.

Once the allegation of deficiency in service is clearly established against the opposite party service provider, the further action of the District Forum in awarding relief to the aggrieved party is all the more justified and that is what the District Forum rightly did in this case.  Thus we do not see any reasons to interfere with the order of the District Forum.

Accordingly the appeal is dismissed with costs in a sum of Rs.2,000/-.  Time for compliance six weeks.

MEMBER.           

                                                                                      MEMBER

                                                                                   Dated 25-8-2009