A.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
AT HYDERABAD.
F.A. 420/2008 against C.C 145/2007 , Dist. Forum, Karimnagar
Between:
1) M/s. Kapil Chit Funds Pvt. Ltd.
Huzurabad Branch, H.No. 12-498
Warangal Road, Huzurabad
Rep. by its Chief Manager *** Appellant/
O.P.
And
Md. Abdul Razak, S/o. M. A. Wahab
Age: 43 years, Jr. Asst.
H.No. 5-3-62, Kazipura, Jagtial
Karimnagar Dist. *** Respondent/
Complainant.
Counsel for the Appellant: M/s. N. Amarnath
Counsel for the Resp: M/s. V. G. S. Rao.
CORAM:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D. APPA RAO, PRESIDENT
&
SMT. M. SHREESHA, MEMBER
FRIDAY, THIS THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND TEN
Oral Order: (Per Hon’ble Justice D. Appa Rao, President)
*****
1) This is an appeal preferred by the opposite party chit fund company against the order of the Dist. Forum directing it to pay Rs. 13,000/- together with compensation of Rs. 5,000/-.
2) The case of the complainant in brief is that he subscribed a chit floated by the appellant chit fund company for a sum of Rs. 2 lakh payable at Rs. 4,000/- in 50 monthly instalments. He joined in the chit commencing from June, 2004. He bid in the auction conducted on 24.6.2007 by foregoing Rs. 21,000/-. He had to get Rs. 1, 79,900/-. He submitted the sureties as required. While so the appellant while delaying payment finally issued a cheque for Rs. 1, 14,848/- on 8.8.2007 after 1-1/2 months. He alleged that it had adjusted the amount Rs. 3,374/- towards monthly subscription, thus he was paid Rs. 1, 18,622/-. Still he had to get Rs. 60,278/-. Therefore he filed the complaint claiming the said amount with interest, compensation and costs.
3) The chit fund company resisted the case. While admitting that the complainant had been a member in the chit for a value of Rs. 2 lakhs and that he participated in the auction held on 24.6.2007 foregoing Rs. 21,100/-it alleged that the complainant stood as guarantor to one of the members J. Gangadhar who joined in the chit for a value of Rs. 1,50,000/-. When he failed to pay the amount it had filed a suit in O.S. No. 13/2006 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Jagtial against J. Gangadhar impleading all the other guarantors including the complainant for recovery of Rs. 45,897/- with interest and costs. The said suit was decreed, and an amount of Rs. 59,578/- was adjusted towards full and final satisfaction of the suit and the same was dismissed as not pressed. The deductions made from out of bid amount were as under:
Value of the chit Rs. 2,00,000/-
Less: Bid amount Rs. 21,100/-
-------------------
Rs. 1,78,900/-
Less: Other deductions
a) verification charges Rs. 700/-
b) July, 2007 instalment Rs. 3774/-
c) Amount due from J.Gangadhar Rs. 59578/-
for which complainant stood --------------- Rs. 64,052/-
as guarantor. --------------------
Balance payable Rs. 1,14,848/-
---------------------
The said amount of Rs. 1,14,848/- was paid by way of cheque on 8.8.2007. All these facts were suppressed by the complainant and therefore it prayed that the complaint be dismissed.
4) The complainant in proof of his case filed his affidavit evidence and got Exs. A1 to A6 marked while the appellants filed the affidavit evidence of its Manager and got Exs. B1 to B5 marked.
5) The Dist. Forum after considering the evidence placed on record opined that assuming that the amount payable by J. Ganagadhar was to be deducted from out of the bid amount of the complainant it was only Rs. 45,897/- but not Rs. 59,578/-, and therefore directed the appellant to pay Rs. 13,000/- + Rs. 5,000/- towards compensation.
6) Aggrieved by the said decision, the chit fund company preferred the appeal contending that the Dist. Forum did not appreciate either facts or law in correct perspective. It did not consider Exs. B1 & B2 which were executed by the complainant to deduct an amount of Rs. 59,578/- from out of bid amount towards suit amount of Rs. 45,897/- and Rs. 13,681/- towards costs. The direction to pay Rs. 13,000/- is clearly against record and therefore prayed that the complaint be dismissed.
7) The point that arises for consideration is whether the order of the Dist. Forum is vitiated by mis-appreciation of fact or law?
8) It is not in dispute that the complainant having subscribed the chit for Rs. 2 lakh bid in the auction held on 24.6.2007 by foregoing Rs. 21,000/-. He would necessarily be entitled to Rs. 1,79,900/-. It is also not in dispute that the complainant stood as guarantor to one of the members of chit by name J. Gangadhar for an amount of Rs. 45,897/- for which a suit was filed in O.S. No. 13/2006 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Jagtial against J. Gangadhar and other guarantors including the complainant for recovery of Rs. 45,897/- with interest and costs vide plaint copy marked as Ex. A5. The complainant for the reasons best known filed Photostat copy of written statement filed by J. Gangadhar marked as Ex. A6. The complainant himself executed a letter Ex. B1 agreeing to transfer an amount of Rs. 59,578/-. Obviously by the date of issuance of Ex. B1 dt. 31.7.2007 fourteen months have expired from the date of filing of said suit against J. Gangadhar and others. Therefore the amount due was calculated including interest and costs over Rs. 45,897/-. He stood as guarantor and executed an agreement Ex. B5. The chit fund company had paid Rs. 1,14,848/- after deducting bid amount of Rs. 21,000/- that was foregone by the complainant, Rs. 700/- towards verification charges, Rs. 3,774/- towards instalment due for July, 2007 and Rs. 59,578/- towards the amount due from J. Gangadhar in all Rs. 64,052/-. The allegation of the complainant is that he was entitled to balance of Rs. 13,000/-. The Dist. Forum without calculating the amounts due by the complainant to the chit fund company opined that a sum of Rs. 59,578/- was wrongly adjusted as against Rs. 45,897/- has no basis. The Dist. Forum had failed to consider the interest + costs payable by the complainant. Moreover he himself gave Ex. B1 to deduct the said amount from out of the amount payable to him. The Dist. Forum went wrong in awarding the said amount. The order of the Dist. Forum is liable to be set-aside.
9) In the result the appeal is allowed setting aside the order of the Dist. Forum. Consequently the complaint is dismissed. However, in the circumstances no costs.
1) _______________________________
PRESIDENT
2) ________________________________
MEMBER
Dt. 29. 10. 2010.
*pnr
“UP LOAD – O.K.”
