IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS’ DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT MYSORE<br /> <br /> PRESENT: 1. Shri.A.T.Munnoli<br /> B.A., L.L.B (Spl.) - President <br /> <br /> 2. Smt.Y.V.Uma Shenoi<br /> M.Sc., B.Ed., - Member<br /> 3. Shri. Shivakumar.J.<br /> B.A., L.L.B., - Member<br /> <br /> CC 211/09 DATED 02.09.2009<br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> Complainant Chikkamaraiah, S/o Mallaiah, No.233, 25th Main Road, Vijayanagar 3rd Stage, Mysore-17.<br /> <br /> (By Sri. S.Prasad, Advocate)<br /> <br /> Vs. <br /> Opposite Parties 1. Deputy Manager, MSIL Chit Fund Division, No.36, Cunning Ham Road, Bangalore-560052.<br /> 2. Branch Manager, MSIL Chit Funds, Mysore Trade Centre Complex, <br /> Mysore-570001.<br /> (By Sri. Ashok Kumar Shetty , Advocate)<br /> <br /> Nature of complaint : Deficiency in service<br /> Date of filing of complaint : 16.06.2009<br /> Date of appearance of O.P. : 14.07.2009<br /> Date of order : 02.09.2009<br /> Duration of Proceeding : 1 MONTH 18 DAYS<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> Sri. A.T.Munnoli,<br /> President<br /> <br /> 1. The complainant has filed the complaint against the opposite parties seeking a relief to direct the opposite parties to pay the bid amount of Rs.25,000/- and also damages of Rs.50,000/- and cost of the proceeding Rs.25,000/-.<br /> <br /> 2. In the complaint, it is alleged that on 01.01.2007, the complainant became one of the subscribers of the chit for Rs.40,000/- with the opposite parties. From time to time the complainant paid the subscriptions. On 07.06.2007, as usual the complainant participated in the bid for Rs.25,000/-. As per the terms and conditions, the complainant furnished two sureties along with salary certificates and executed bond on stamp paper of Rs.100. The opposite parties informed the complainant that he will receive a cheque within a month. In spite of lapse of 2 to 3 months complainant did not receive the cheque. When complainant contacted the opposite parties, they demanded that salary certificates of the sureties should be attested by the higher authorities. Complainant informed the opposite parties that there is no such term or condition. The complainant had to arrange marriage of his son. He was need of money, and as such he requested the opposite parties to pay the bid amount. So far, they have not paid the bid amount. Hence, it is prayed to allow the complaint.<br /> <br /> 3. The opposite parties have filed version contending that the complaint is not maintainable and some of the facts alleged in the complaint are denied. The opposite parties contend that the salary certificates of the sureties must be certified by the Drawing Officer, whereas in the case on hand they were self attested. Hence, the opposite parties informed the same to the complainant and called upon to furnish proper sureties. The complainant without furnishing proper sureties has filed the complaint. The opposite parties even now also ready to pay the bid amount to the complainant, if he comply with the requirements. However, further it is contend that since the complainant committed default in payment of subsequent installments, the complainant is not entitled for dividends etc., On these grounds, it is prayed to dismiss the complaint.<br /> <br /> 4. To prove the allegations in the complaint, the complainant has filed his affidavit and has produced certain documents. On the other hand, for the opposite parties, the Deputy General Manager has filed affidavit and also produced certain documents. We have heard the arguments of learned advocates for both the parties and perused the material on record.<br /> <br /> 5. Now the points arises for consideration are as under:-<br /> 1. Whether the complainant has proved any deficiency on the part of the opposite parties and that he is entitled to the relief sought?<br /> 2. What order?<br /> <br /> 6. Our findings are as under:-<br /> Point no.1 : Affirmative.<br /> Point no.2 : As per the order.<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 7. Point no. 1:- As to the fact that the complainant was subscriber of the Chit belonging to the opposite parties and that he participated in the bid for Rs.25,000/- etc., as alleged in the complaint is not disputed. So also, the claim of the complainant that he was entitled for said amount of Rs.25,000/-, there is no dispute. As required, the complainant had furnished two sureties and even agreement of guarantee was executed by the sureties in favour of the opposite parties.<br /> <br /> <br /> 8. The only dispute between the parties is, the opposite parties have contended that the salary certificates of the sureties should be attested by the Drawing Officer and since in the case on hand, the salary certificates of the sureties were not attested by the Drawing Officers or higher officers of the sureties, were not acceptable. Hence, only point needs to be considered is, whether the sureties furnished by the complainant were sufficient and there is any fault on the part of the opposite parties in not accepting the said sureties. <br /> 9. The complainant had offered the sureties, one by name J.Mani, Sub-Post Master and another by name P.Ramamurthy, Postman. The Sub-post master has signed the required forms including the certificate regarding deduction of the required amount from the salary of both the persons. So also, bond has been executed. In respect of these aspects, absolutely there is no dispute. <br /> 10. The complainant contend that there is no Rule, as such that the salary certificate should be attested or certified only by the higher officer of the respective officer or official, who have been offered as surety. The opposite parties have not pointed out any such Rule or Regulations to the effect that salary certificate of the surety shall have to be certified or attested only by the higher officers.<br /> 11. Purpose of furnishing sureties is to provide guarantee of any amount that the principal person is to repay. In the case on hand, the first surety is Sub-post master and second surety is Postman. The opposite parties do not dispute that the first surety is Sub-post master and second surety is postman. So also, it is not the case of the opposite parties that the sureties are not getting the salary as stated or that the salary certificates issued are fake etc., When that is so, the act of the opposite parties in not accepting the sureties offered by the complainant, is not in confirmative with the law and no justification can be find on the part of the opposite parties in rejecting the said sureties.<br /> 12. When that is so, denial by the opposite parties of payment of the bid amount to the complainant amounts to deficiency in service. It is relevant to note that the complainant participated in the bid as he was in need of money to arrange marriage of his son. All along that fact is mentioned in the complaint and even he has produced marriage invitation card. Taking into consideration of all these aspects, the complainant is entitled to the said bid amount. However, if at all the complainant is liable to pay any amount towards subsequent installments if any, the opposite parties are at liberty to recover the same in accordance with law. So for concerned to the present case, the opposite parties have to accept of the sureties and pay the bid amount to the complainant. Accordingly, we answer the point in affirmative.<br /> 13. Point No. 2:- Considering the discussion made above and conclusion arrived at, we pass the following order:- <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 1. The Complaint is partly allowed.<br /> 2. The opposite parties are hereby directed to pay the bid amount of Rs.25,000/- to the complainant with interest at the rate of 15% p.a. from the date of the bid, till realization by accepting the sureties already offered. The order should be complied by the opposite parties within a month from the date of this order.<br /> 3. However, it is made clear that the opposite parties are at liberty to recover any amount that the complainant is liable, in accordance with law.<br /> 4. Further, the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- to the complainant towards cost of the proceedings.<br /> 5. Give a copy of this order to each party according to Rules.<br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, transcript revised by us and then pronounced in the open Forum on this the day 2nd September 2009)<br /> <br /> <br /> (A.T.Munnoli) <br /> President <br /> <br /> (Y.V.Uma Shenoi)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> (Shivakumar.J.)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />