BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: HYDERABAD.
F.A.No.1080/2013 in C.C.No.349/2011, District Forum, Warangal.
Between:
- Kapil Chit Funds Private Limited,
Kakitiya Branch, rep. by its Branch
Manager, H.No.2-5-760,
Subedari Hanamkonda.
- Kapil Chit Funds Private Limited,
Rep. by its Managing Director
Plot No.9, First floor,
Krishnapuri Colony,
West Marredpally, Secunderabad. ..Appellants/
Opp.parties.
And
Md.Ghouse S/o.Kaseem
Aged about 60 years, Occ:Business,
H.No.6-105, Kondaparthy
Hanamkonda, Warangal. Respondent/
Complainant .
Counsel for the Appellants: Mr.N.Amarmath
Counsel for the Respondent:-Notice on respondent held sufficient.
QUORUM: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, PRESIDENT.
AND
SRI R.LAKSHMINARASIMHA RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER.
WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JULY,
TWO THOUSAND FOURTEEN
Oral Order ( Per Hon’ble Sri Justice GopalakrishnaTamada, President.)
***
The opposite parties are the appellants and this appeal is directed against the orders passed by the District Forum, Warangal in C.C.No.349/2011 dated 12-3-2013 whereby the District Forum allowed the complaint in part and directed the appellants/opposite parties to refund an amount of Rs.35,400/- paid by the complainant towards chit amount along with interest @ 7.5% from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 17-8-2011 till the date of realization and also pay costs of Rs.1000/-.
The brief facts are that the appellants are Kapil Chit Funds Pvt. Ltd., carrying on business in chits and the respondent/complainant is one of its subscribers. In the year, 2010, the respondent became a member/subscriber of the chit bearing No.FRDT04H11 for an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- for a period of 50 months by paying an amount of Rs.6000/- every month. The respondent paid the subscriptions for the months from May, 2010 to December, 2010 and he became a prized bidder. According to the respondent/complainant though he offered sufficient sureties, the appellants did not come forward to pay the prized amount and at a later stage, they removed the respondent from out of the said chit and allotted the same to another subscriber. In those circumstances, the complainant i.e. respondent herein approached the District Forum and filed the complaint for a direction to the appellants/opposite parties to pay the prize amount along with interest @ 2% per month till the payment of prized amount or return the amount paid by the complainant along with damages of Rs.1,50,000/- and costs.
The appellants resisted the complaint and admitted that the complainant was their subscriber and was also a prized bidder and when he was directed to furnish sureties as he has not furnished sureties despite repeated reminders, they have removed him from out of the said chit transaction and allotted the said chit to another subscriber. As per the terms of the chit transaction the amount paid by the respondent was forfeited by the appellants and according to them in addition to the amount that was forfeited, a further sum of Rs.9,725/- has to be paid by the respondent i.e. complainant and submitted that there is no deficiency in service on their behalf.
Before the District Forum, the complainant marked Exs.A1 to A11 and similarly the opposite parties marked Exs.B1 to B15. Having considered the entire material on record, the District Forum came to the conclusion that there is deficiency in service and accordingly while allowing the said complaint filed by the respondent herein directed the appellants to refund an amount of Rs.35,400/- paid by the complainant towards chit amount along with interest @ 7.5% from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 17-8-2011 till the date of realization and also pay costs of Rs.1000/-.
As stated supra, the said order is under challenge before us.
Heard.
The facts not in dispute are that the respondent has paid an amount of Rs.35,400/- towards chit instalments during May, 2010 to December, 2010. From the facts as narrated by the respondent, he was prized subscriber but however he failed to furnish sufficient sureties according to the appellants this prompted the appellants herein to remove him from out of the chit transaction and enroll another member in his place. Be that as it may, if these facts are taken into consideration, it can definitely be said that there is no deficiency in service and the appellants are justified in forfeiting the said amount. But it shall be remembered that this Act has come into existence on the basis of principles of natural justice. When we take the principles of natural justice into consideration, it is beyond any doubt that the complainant had paid some instalments and has become successful bidder thereafter according to him he furnished sureties but as the said sureties are insufficient sureties, the appellants have cancelled the chit transaction belonging to the respondent and enrolled another member by allotting the said chit. From the above it is clear that the appellants i.e. chit fund company has not incurred any loss and it was only the complainant who sustained loss and for the reason that an amount of Rs.35,400/- paid by the respondent/complainant was forfeited and as stated above when we take the principles of natural justice into consideration particularly when the chit fund company i.e. the appellants have not incurred any loss as they have enrolled another member, in our considered opinion, the respondent shall be paid back the said amount which was paid by him in instalments towards the said chit. In those circumstances though it can be strictly stated that there is no deficiency in service, still we direct the appellant herein to refund the said amount which was paid by the respondent towards chit. Accordingly we see no reason to interfere with the well said order of the District Forum and the appellants shall compensate the respondent by refunding the amount paid by him.
Accordingly this appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Time for compliance four weeks.
Sd/-PRESIDENT.
Sd/-MEMBER.
JM Dt.23-7-2014.
