A. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : ATHYDERABAD
FA 103/2009Hyderabad.
Between :
1. Shriram Chit Fund (P) Ltd
Rep. by its Authorized Signatory
No. 44,Sarojini Devi Road, Secunderabad
Rep. by its Divisional Manager.
2. The Branch Manager,
Shriram Chit Fund (P) Ltd
Basheerbagh, II Branch
RubyPlaza, H. No. 3-6-343 & 344, 3rdBasheerbagh,Main Road, Hydeabad – 29…
And
M. Balakrishna rao, s/o late M. Balaveeraiah,
Aged about 50 years, Occ : Business,
R/o H.No. 12-2-12/4, Asifnagar,Hyderabad
Counsel for the Appellants
Counsel for the Respondent
Coram
And
Friday, the Eleventh Day of January
Two Thousand Twelve
****
2. The brief facts of the complaint
The complainant became subscriber of the chit bearing No. 3391/BXYZ4/82004/35
3. OPs appeared through counsel and a notice dt. 29.5.2008 to the complainant to take steps to offer acceptable surety so as to withdraw the prize amount. A second notice dt. 19.6.2008 was also issued in the said context but there is no response from him.
6.
7.
8. Now the point for consideration is whether the order of the District Forum is sustainable ?
There is no dispute that became subscriber of the chit described in the complaint with the Ops rd or if it consists of building th value exceeds by ½ the amount due from the prized subscriber. When the foreman of the chit is a trustee for all the subscribers of the chit naturally he has to take all precautions in releasing the prize amount in favour of one subscriber and ensure payment of future subscriptions by the prized subscriber and it appears that in the instant case the foreman of the Chit Fund Company has acted in according with provisions of the Act and insisted the complainant to furnish security to his satisfaction for release of the amount and therefore we cannot find fault with him in not releasing the amount to the complainant. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and therefore the order of the District Forum is not sustainable.
9.
