BEFORE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD
F.A.No.232 OF 2010 AGAINST C.C.NO.234 OF 2008 DISTRICT FORUM-II VIJAYAWADA
Between:
1. M/s Kapil Chit Fund (P) Ltd.,
rep. by its Managing Director
Dr.No.20-27-61, Near Gandhi Cooperative
Bank, Museum Road, Governorpet
Vijayawada-2
2. The Manager, Kapil Chit Funds Pvt Ltd.
rep. by its Managing Director, Dr.NO.20-27-61
Near Gandhi Cooperative
Bank Museum Road, Governorpet
Vijayawada-2
Both are rep. by their AGM Y.Rajender Kumar
S/o Moti Rao, aged 40 yrs, Ramnagar, Hyderabad
Appellants opposite parties
A N D
Kukkapalli Srinivasa Rao S/o Subbarayudu
Dr.No.21-10/3-81, Sri Nagar Colony
3rd Lane, Satyanarayanapuram, Vijayawada-11
Respondent/complainant
Counsel for the Appellants Sri N.Amarnath
Counsel for the Respondent Sri V.Gourisankara Rao
QUORUM: SRI R.LAKSHMINARASIMHA RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER
AND
SRI THOTA ASHOK KUMAR, HON’BLE MEMBER
FRIDAY THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF APRIL
TWO THOUSAND TWELVE
Oral Order (As per Sri R.Lakshminarasimha Rao, Hon’ble Member)
***
1. M/s Kapil Chit Funds Pvt Ltd is the appellant. The appeal is directed against the order of the District Forum whereby the appellant was directed not to resort or rush to a court of law against any subscriber of the chits much less against the complainant before completion of the chit period and pay `50,000/- towards compensation and costs of `2,000/-
2. The respondent subscribed to the chit group bearing number VWLOIP-10 for chit value of `10,00,000/- conducted by the appellant company and the chit period was for40 months on monthly subscription @ `25,000/-. The chit was commenced in the month of December,2007 and the respondent participated in the auction conducted in the July,2008. The respondent having agreed to forego `3,50,000/- was declared successful bidder. The respondent claimed that he furnished the sureties as required by the appellant company and yet the appellant company insisted on him to issue and keep as security three signed cheque leaves. The appellant company collected a sum of `1500/- towards verification charges and it has also collected penal charges. The appellant got issued notice on 30.10.2008 with a demand for `2,00,000/- towards damages .
3. The appellant chit fund company restated the claim on the premise that there is no agreement that the prize amount would be paid within one month from the date of furnishing the sureties. After the respondent was declared successful bidder, he has to furnish sureties, the appellant has to accept the sureties through verification and the respondent has to execute promissory note. Guarantee bond, cash receipt and adjustment memo etc., The respondent had completed all the formalities in the month of September,2008 and the prize amount was paid to him on 29.09.2008. The appellant company has not demanded cheque from the respondent and the delay occurred in payment of the prize amount was due to the negligence of the respondent.
4. The respondent has filed his affidavit and the documents,Ex.A1 to A3. On behalf of the appellant company, K.Yellaiah, Manager of Opposite party no.2 filed his affidavit and the documents,ExB1 to B11.
5. The District Forum allowed the complaint on the premise that the respondent received the prize amount after two months from the date of auction. The District Forum observed that the appellant could have waited for completion of the chit period for filing the suit.
6. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the opposite party has filed the appeal contending that the District Forum has not considered the evidence on record in correct perspective and it had not taken into consideration of the terms and conditions of A.P.Chit Fund Act, 1971.
7. The point for consideration is whether the order of the District Forum is vitiated by misapprciation of facts or law?
8. The subscription of the respondent to the chit group series VWLOIP-10 with ticket number for the chit value of `10,00,000/- and commencement of the chit from December, 2007 are not disputed as also it is not in dispute that the respondent participated in the auction held on in the month of July, 2008 and he was a successful bidder in the auction.
9. The District Forum discussed the delay caused in making payment of the amount to the respondent as under:
There is no dispute that the complainant submitted surety certificates issued by the authorities dated 21.08.2008 even then the opposite parties ought to have completed the verification by the end of August and ought to have paid the same in the month of August itself but they have not paid and thereby they have violated the Rules and Act of Chit Funds Act, why because if the auction bidder or successful bidder fails to submit the sureties it is the duty of the foreman to deposit the amount in any nationalized bank but here in this case the opposite parties has not done so. Further, ongoing through Ex.B1 the terms and conditions, they are of one sided even then the foreman has to deposit the amount of auction after completion of one month in any Nationalized Bank and further “When a prized subscriber defaults in payment a penalty of 6 paise per rupee or part thereof will be charged for the first month. If the default continues over a month such a member will not be entitled to dividends also in auction to aforesaid penalty charges” which is nothing but violation of principles of natural justice and this type of conditions are not acceptable in an orderly society. However, as could be seen from the material on hand there is no dispute that the complainant received the amount after two months and so he is entitled for damages though the opposite parties took five sureties yet paid the amount belatedly.
20. The respondent joined as member in the chit in the month of Decembr,2007 and the chit ends by the month of March,2011. The respondent was the highest bidder in the auction conducted on 29.07.2008. It is contended on behalf of the appellant that there is no agreement between it and the respondent that the prize amount should be paid within one month after auction. The appellant has no answer to the question as to what prevented it from paying the prize amount to the respondent within a reasonable time and the appellant also found to be at fault for consuming much time in verifying the sureties’ certificates. The District Forum erred in holding that the appellant had taken two months’ time for making payment of the prize amount to the respondent.
21. The salary certificates of the sureties pertain to the month of August and they can be issued in the month of September and not in the month of August,2008. The appellant submits that the respondent furnished the sureties in the third week of September,2008. The appellant has not adduced evidence in support of its plea of the submission of certificates in the third week of September,2008. As the salary certificates of the sureties are pertaining to the month of August,2008, it can be presumed that the respondent has furnished them some time in the first week of September,2008.
22. The District Forum awarded an amount of `50,000/- which is on higher side and liable to be reduced to `15,000/-.
23. In the result the appeal is allowed by modifying the order of the District Forum by reducing the amount from `50,000/- to `15,000/-. No costs.
MEMBER
MEMBER
Dt.27.04.2012
KMK*
