KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPEAL Nos. 350/2017 & 367/2017
COMMON JUDGMENT DATED: 18.01.2023
(Against the Order in C.C. 186/2013 of CDRF, Thrissur)
PRESENT:
HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. K. SURENDRA MOHAN : PRESIDENT
SRI.T.S.P. MOOSATH : JUDICIAL MEMBER
SRI.RANJIT. R : MEMBER
APPEAL No. 350/2017
APPELLANT:
Thambi V.S., Vadakethalakkal House, Near Victory Inn, Kozhikode Road, P.O., Kunnamkulam, Thrissur.
(By Adv. Unnikrishnan V.)
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
Monetary Kuries (P) Ltd., represented by Chairman, Regd. Office, Bell Mouth Building, Round South, Thrissur.
(By Adv. G.S. Kalkura)
APPEAL No. 367/2017
APPELLANT:
Monetary Kuries (P) Ltd., Regd. Office, III Floor, Bellmoth Building, Round South, Thrissur represented by Chairman, Ouseph M.A., Madathiparambil House, Ammadom P.O., Thrissur-1.
(By Adv. G.S. Kalkura)
RESPONDENT:
Thambi V.S., Vadakethalakkal House, Near Victory Inn, Kozhikode Road, P.O., Kunnamkulam, Thrissur.
(By Adv. Unnikrishnan V.)
COMMON JUDGMENT
SRI.T.S.P. MOOSATH: JUDICIAL MEMBER
Appeal No. 350/2017 is filed by the complainant and Appeal No. 367/2017 is filed by the opposite party in C.C. No. 186/2013 of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thrissur, in short the District Forum. By the said order the complaint was partly allowed by the District Forum and the opposite party was directed to refund Rs. 18,000/-, the amount of three instalments of chitty remitted by the complainant, to him.
2. The averments contained in the complaint are, in brief, as follows: Complainant had joined chit No. 18 soubhagya 6th day monthly kuri conducted by the opposite party from the Faridabad branch on 06.09.2011. The total sala of the kuri was Rs. 10 Lakhs and the monthly instalment was Rs. 6,000/- and the ticket No. was 1474. The complainant had remitted 3 instalments of the kuri properly. The opposite party had informed the complainant that the kuri was conducted by the opposite party from Faridabad and in case of auction, the subscribers have got facility to participate in the auction either directly or through proxy. On 07.11.2011, when the complainant remitted the third instalment, he expressed his intention to auction the kuri. At that time, he came to know that the kuri was being auctioned at the Thrissur branch of the opposite party office. When he expressed his intention to participate in the auction, the opposite party demanded three blank cheques. The complainant challenged the same, one of the executive directors spoke harshly to him and told him to go out of the premises. Afterwards, when the complainant approached to remit the 4th, 5th and 6th instalments, the staff spoke harshly to him and did not accept the amount from the complainant. According to the complainant, the opposite party refused to accept the amount, consequent on his challenging the illegal acts in the conduct of the kuri. On the tenth instalment on 06.06.2012, the complainant’s ticket No. 1474 won the prize amount. The opposite party sent intimation notice also in this regard, to the complainant. Accordingly, the complainant approached the company with the pending instalments and the required securities for the kuri amount. But the opposite party, without accepting the pending amounts, refused to pay the prize amount of Rs. 10 Lakhs. Since the act of the opposite party amounts to deficiency of service and unfair trade practice, the complainant sent a lawyer notice dated 06.07.2012, to the opposite party, for which a reply has been received stating false things. As such the complainant is in great troubles. Hence he filed the complaint with prayers to direct the opposite party to pay the prize amount of Rs. 10 Lakhs with interest from 06.06.2012, the date of the kuri, after accepting the required surety. The prayer is also for compensation and costs.
3. The opposite party filed version raising the following contentions: The complainant is a chronic defaulter in remitting the monthly instalments, which is clear from the fact that he has remitted only three instalments, at the time of the tenth draw. This is a violation of the stipulations of the kuri vaimpu and as such, he is not entitled for the prize amount, since this is a forfeited ticket, as per kuri rules. The allegation that blank signed cheques were asked for, by the company, is wrong. The allegation that the company is not receiving the instalments is also wrong. If the company is not receiving the instalments, the complainant can send the amount by D.D. or M.O. which will be legal proof of remittance. As far as the Foreman of the opposite party company is concerned, all the tickets will be put in the draw, without considering whether the subscriber is a defaulter. But, if the defaulted subscriber is prized, kuri amount will not be paid to him, as per the stipulations in the kuri vaimpu, which is openly agreed and signed by the subscriber, at the time of joining the kuri. In this case also, only this legal aspect has been implemented against the complainant. Now, after the remittance of the third instalment, the complainant never stepped into the company to pay the instalments and filed the complaint with wrong statements for illegal gain. Hence the opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. The complainant has filed proof affidavit and documents produced by him were marked as Exts. P1 to P4. The opposite party also filed proof affidavit and the documents produced by him were marked as Exts. R1 to R6.
5. Considering the evidence adduced by the parties and hearing both sides the District Forum has passed the impugned order. Aggrieved by the order passed by the District Forum, the complainant has filed Appeal No. 350/2017 and the opposite party has filed Appeal No. 367/2017.
6. Since both the appeals were filed against the same order of the District Forum, both these appeals were heard and considered together.
7. Heard both sides. Perused the records.
8. The parties are referred according to their status/rank in the complaint.
9. There is no dispute to the fact that the complainant was a subscriber of the kuri conducted by the opposite party which had 182 instalments and the complainant had remitted only three instalments. On the 10th instalment on 06.06.2012, the complainant’s ticket No. 1474 won the prize amount. The complainant approached the opposite party with the pending instalments and required security, but the opposite party refused to receive the amount. According to the opposite party, the complainant was a chronic defaulter and hence his ticket has been forfeited and so he is not entitled to get the prized amount.
10. It is admitted by the complainant that he had paid only three instalments. But according to him he approached the opposite party to pay the 4th, 5th and 6th instalments of the kuri, but they did not accept the amount. The draw of the kuri relates to the 10th instalment. There is no dispute to the fact that as per the rules of the kuri, complainant should have paid all the 10 instalments before the draw. Ext. P3 is the kuri pass book which contains the rules of the kuri. As per clause 7 of the rules, defaulter in payment of subscriptions shall not be allowed to participate in the auction proceedings unless subscribed up to that date. As rightly found by the District Forum there is no evidence from the side of the complainant as regards the attempts made / steps taken by him to remit the instalments. If the opposite party refused to accept the amount the complainant could have made attempts to remit the amount either by sending the money by Money Order or by D.D. or by online payment. The complainant could have cross examined the opposite party and brought to light the actual facts. However, no steps have been taken by the complainant and thus there is no evidence to prove the claim of the complainant that it was because of the act of the opposite party that he could not remit the instalments and he became a defaulter. It is admitted by the complainant that he has defaulted in payment of subscriptions and he paid only three instalments. As per clause 13 of the kuri rules, three consecutive defaults deprive the subscribers of their right to be subscribers in the chit/kuri unless otherwise allowed by the Foreman. Non-removal from the list of subscribers or non-substitution of another in such cases shall not be construed as having allowed the defaulter to continue as a subscriber as forfeiture takes place automatically in the case of three consecutive defaults. The counsel for the appellant submitted that as per the rules of the kuri defaulters in payment of subscriptions will not be allowed to participate in the auction proceedings unless subscribed up to that date. But the complainant was allowed to participate in the auction proceedings and thereafter the opposite party cannot say that the complainant was a defaulter and hence he is not entitled to get the prized money. The counsel for the opposite party denied the statement of the complainant that he has participated in the auction proceedings. According to him, after the remittance of the third instalment the complainant never came to the office of the opposite party. The fact is that the Foreman of the chitty would put all tickets in the draw without considering whether the subscriber was a defaulter. Thus the ticket No. 1474 of the complainant was also put in the lot. But if the defaulted subscriber is prized, the amount will not be given to him as per the kuri rules, agreed and signed by the subscriber/complainant at the time of joining the kuri. As per clause 14 of the rules of the kuri, in the case of forfeited ticket the subscribers concerned shall lose all benefits of dividends accrued and all other privileges attached to the ticket. But the number comprising the ticket shall continue to remain in the lot, which when drawn in any subsequent drawing entitles the defaulter to the actual amount subscribed by him, less the amount of commission of the Foreman. In these circumstances, the complainant who was a defaulter in payment of subscriptions to the kuri conducted by the opposite party and whose ticket was forfeited is not entitled to get the prized amount. It is true that the District Forum has not made an elaborate discussion of these facts and the various clauses of the rules of kuri applicable to the facts of the case were not specifically mentioned in the order. But the District Forum has rightly found that there was no evidence to find that the complainant had made any attempt to remit the instalments and he was a chronic defaulter in payment of the subscriptions and hence he was not entitled to get the prized amount. We are of the view that there is no reason/ground to interfere with the said finding of the District Forum. So Appeal No. 350/2017 is liable to be dismissed.
11. The counsel for the appellant in A 367/2017 submitted that the District Forum ought to have dismissed the complaint in toto. He submitted that the order of the District Forum directing the opposite party to refund Rs. 18,000/-, the amount of 3 instalments remitted by the complainant to him is in violation of kuri rules. As per the kuri rules the Foreman commission is to be deducted from the instalments and after such deduction of commission alone the balance amount is to be disbursed. As per clause 14 of the kuri rules in the case of forfeited ticket the subscriber is entitled to get the amount remitted towards the subscriptions / instalments less the amount of commission of the Foreman. So the complainant is entitled to get the amount of Rs. 18,000/- remitted by him towards the instalments only after deducting the Foreman commission. So the order passed by the District Forum is to be modified to that effect.
In the result, A 350/2017 is dismissed.
Parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.
A 367/2017 is partly allowed and the order passed by the District Forum is modified. The opposite party is directed to refund the amount of Rs. 18,000/-, the amount of three instalments remitted by the complainant, to him after deducting the Foreman commission, within one month from the date of this order.
Parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.
At the time of filing of the appeal, appellant in A 367/2017 has deposited Rs. 9,000/-. The respondent/complainant is permitted to obtain release of the said amount, on filing proper application to be adjusted/credited towards the amount due to him from the appellant/opposite party.
JUSTICE K. SURENDRA MOHAN : PRESIDENT
T.S.P. MOOSATH : JUDICIAL MEMBER
jb RANJIT. R : MEMBER
