By Smt.Padmini Sudheesh, President
The facts of the case of complainant are that the complainant had subscribed one ticket kuri as per statement No.59 class A in the 5th day pooval kuri No.2 conducted by the 1st respondent company from Bangalore branch. The chitty was commenced on 5/10/83 and the monthly instalment of the chitty is Rs.600/-. The complainant had been regularly remitting the instalment amounts and on 5/6/98 the complainant auctioned the said chitty. As per terms of the chitty the 1st respondent company had a duty to pay the amount of the auctioned chitty to the subscriber. The complainant was ready to furnish necessary security for receiving the amount. But the respondents 2 to 6 had informed the complainant that the company was in financial difficulties and hence they were unable to pay the amount immediately. They had promised and assured that they would keep the amount as a term deposit for a period of 5 years and on maturity the amount would be paid to the complainant along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum. They had also promised and assured the remaining instalment to the chitty would be adjusted from the interest of the deposited amount. The complainant had deposited the amount with the company. Later the complainant had demanded the deposit receipt from the company but they informed that they would keep the receipt as the chitty would be terminated on 5/2/2000. Even after the termination of the chitty the receipt was not given to the complainant. Since the deposit was to mature on 5/6/03, the complainant had approached the respondent 2 to 6 and requested to give the deposit receipt to the complainant. The respondents were not prepared to give receipt. So the complainant made a demand on 5/5/03 by lawyer notice. The respondents 1,5 and 6 had evaded the notices and the notices were returned unserved. Second respondent sent a reply that he had resigned from the directorship on 1/3/95. The respondents have a duty to act as per law. There is deficiency in service on the part of respondents. Hence the complaint.
2. The counter of 2nd respondent is to the effect that the averments in para 2 of complaint are not true. This respondent does not know the complainant at all. This respondent has never requested the complainant to join the kuri and this respondent does not know whether the said kuri is auctioned and it is remitted in term deposit by complainant and the 1st respondent assured it will return with interest at the rate of 18%. The complainant never met this respondent. This respondent never said that this respondent shall keep the receipt till 5/2/2000 and amount will be paid with 18% interest. There was no auction for the same. When this respondent received a registered notice a reply was sent by stating true facts. This respondent resigned from the board of directors and as Chairman on 1/3/95. Thereafter 4th respondent became Chairman. After that Mr.Madhavan Pazangaparambil became Chairman. Later 3rd respondent became the Chairman. So this respondent is not answerable for
3. Other respondents remained exparte.
4. Points for consideration are :
1) Whether there is any deficiency in service from the respondents?
2) If so reliefs and costs ?
5. The evidence consists of Exhibits P1 to P6 on the part of complainant and Exhibit R1 and R2 on the part of 2nd respondent. Both submitted no oral evidence.
6. Points : It is the case of complainant the she has subscribed one ticket as per statement No.59 class A in the 5th day pooval kuri 2 tickets by 1st respondent company. She had been regularly remitted the instalment and the 45th instalment being due on 5/6/98. She had auctioned the chitty on 5/6/98. Respondents retained the auctioned amount with them and did not release the amount. According to the complainant the respondents had a duty to pay the auctioned amount to the subscriber. She stated that she was ready to furnish sufficient security for receiving the amount. But according to her the respondents promised that they would keep the amount as a term deposit for a period of 5 years and on maturity the amount would be returned with interest at the rate of 18% per annum. According to her the respondents also promised that remaining instalment to the chitty would be adjusted from the interest of the deposit amount. The auctioned amount was not returned even after the maturity of the alleged deposit.
7. The complainant produced Exhibit P1 the pass book which shows the remittances made by her. It would show that she had remitted 45th instalment and each instalment carries Rs.600/- so the total amount due will be Rs.27,000/- only. It is the case of complainant that the auctioned amount was not returned by the respondents and the auctioned amount was deposited as a term deposit for 5 years. There is no evidence to prove the quantum of auctioned amount. She has not adduced oral evidence. In the complaint she has stated that she had auctioned the chitty on 5/6/98 only. There is no whisper about the amount for which she had auctioned the chitty. It is true that there is an endorsement on Exhibit P1 that “auctioned”. There is no evidence to show that she had auctioned the chitty for the amount claimed by her. Exhibit P1 would show the remittances of 45 instalments by the complainant. So there is no doubt and she is entitled for that amount.
8. It is the case of complainant that the respondents had promised to adjust the interest of the deposited amount towards the future instalments. Only 5 instalments are remaining to terminate the kuri. There is no entry of payments after 45th instalment. There is no averment in the complaint that she had auctioned the kuri for such an amount. In the prayer portion it is stated that direct the respondents to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.46,845/- along with future interest etc. Even then the auctioned amount is not specified. Except 2nd respondent al others remained exparte. 2nd respondent in his counter stated that he had resigned from the board of directors and as Chairman on 1/3/95. He stated that he does not know the complainant at all. According to him he is not answerable for any amount to complainant. He has produced documents and are marked as Exhibits R1 and R2. Those are the lawyer notice and reply notice. It is the defence of 2nd respondent that he has no information at all about the complainant. He has already stated that he has resigned from the board of directors and as Chairman from the company on 1/3/95. As per Exhibit P1 the kuri was started on 5/10/83. She had remitted till 5/6/98. So for a long period this Respondent was a board of director . Even if it is averred in the counter that he had resigned from the director board no evidence was brought by him to prove that he had resigned from the directorship. So it is difficult to believe this version of 2nd respondent. So he is also liable to pay money to the complainant. There is no evidence to show the quantum of auctioned amount. There is no doubt about the right of complainant to get the amount shown in Exhibit P1. There is no contrary evidence at all. So she is entitled for Exhibit P1 amount with interest only.
9. In the result the complaint stands partly allowed and the respondents are directed to return the Exhibit P1 amount with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from 5/6/1998 till realization with cost Rs.750/- (Rupees Seven hundred and fifty only) within 2 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
Dictated to the Confdl. Asst., transcribed by her corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum this the27th day of July 2010.
