BEFORE THE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

AT  HYDERABAD.

FA  629 of 2009   against C.C.  37/2008, Dist. Forum, Warangal 

Between:

Singirikonda Damoder

S/o. Late S. V. Rajam

Age: 58 years, Business

H.No. 9-2-97, Yellam Bazar

Warangal Dist.                                            ***                           Appellant/

                                                                                                  Complainant.

                                                                   And

M/s. Rajani Chit Fund Pvt. Ltd.

Rep. by its Managing Director

Smt. Vanaja, W/o. Late CH. Saraiah

Age: 51 years, Rajani Complex

Chowrastha, Hanamkonda

Now at H.No. 2-739/4-C/2/21

Ramnagar, Behind Old Bus Depot

Hanamkonda.                                             ***                         Respondent/

                                                                                                Opposite Party.

FA  632 of 2009   against C.C.  40/2008, Dist. Forum, Warangal 

Between:

Jammula Ranga Reddy

S/o. Jammula Laxma Reddy

Age: 61 years, Pvt. Employee

R/o. 5-8-73/1, Reddy Complex

Lashkar Bazar, Hanamkonda

Now at D.No. 1-8-467

Madati Narasimha Reddy Quarters

Balasamudram, Hanamkonda

Warangal Dist.                                            ***                           Appellant/

                                                                                                  Complainant.

                                                                   And

M/s. Rajani Chit Fund Pvt. Ltd.

Rep. by its Managing Director

Smt. Vanaja, W/o. Late CH. Saraiah

Age: 51 years, Rajani Complex

Chowrastha, Hanamkonda

Now at H.No. 2-739/4-C/2/21

Ramnagar, Behind Old Bus Depot

Hanamkonda.                                             ***                         Respondent/

                                                                                                Opposite Party.

Counsel for the Appellant:                          M/s. V. Gourishankara Rao

Counsel for the Respondent:                       M/s.  Shyam S. Agarwal

CORAM:

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D. APPA RAO,  PRESIDENT

                                            SMT. M. SHREESHA,  MEMBER

                                                                             &

                                            SRI R. L. NARASIMHA RAO, MEMBER

MONDAY, THIS THE EIGTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND ELVEN

ORAL ORDER:  (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice D. Appa Rao, President.)

***

1)                These batch of appeals consisting of 2  in number  are filed by the unsuccessful complainants against the very same chit fund company.  Though the Dist. Forum passed separate orders  on  each of the complaints since common questions of fact and law are involved, we are of the opinion that same can be disposed of by a common order.   

2)                The case of the complainants in brief is that  they  joined as  members in the chit floated by the respondent chit fund company for various amounts as shown in the  tabular form  below payable in 50 months Accordingly  they paid subscriptions which reflect by way of receipts and acknowledgements  in the pass book.   Later it  stopped collecting the amounts at it went into deep financial problems.  It locked the premises to evade payment to the subscribers.   The chit was terminated.   When contacted,  the  Managing Director  assured that he would return the amount in instalments.  When insisted  at last he refunded  certain amounts with a promise that he would pay the remaining amount within a short time.   Accordingly he also executed  an undertaking.    While so  CH. Saraiah, Managing Director died on  18.11.2005 and on his death his wife  Smt. Vanaja became  the Managing Director.   Despite repeated demands amounts were not paid, and therefore  they  claimed the amounts covered under the chit with interest @ 12% p.a., from  the date of complaint till realization together with compensation and costs.

3)                 The respondent chit fund company resisted the case.   While denying each and every allegation made in the complaints it  denied payment of amounts  and acknowledgement dt. 15.11.2005 as forged and fabricated document.   The complaints were  hopelessly barred by limitation.  By virtue of orders of   1^st  Additional  Senior Civil Judge, Warangal in O.S. No. 48/2001  the office was seized.    Sri CH. Saraiah, Managing Director fell sick  in  the month of October, 2005 with paralysis  and had taken treatment  in  Sai Krishna Super Speciality Hosptial, Kachiguda, Hyderabad from  27.10.2005 to 7.11.2005,  in  Aditya Multi Speciality Hosptial, Hanamkonda  from 11.11.2005 to 16.11.2005, and further in Care Hospital  till his death on 18.11.2005.  Therefore the allegation that he gave acknowledgement on 15.11.2005 is false.   Since complicated questions of fact and law are involved the Dist. Forum has no jurisdiction.  Therefore  she prayed for dismissal of the complaints  with costs.

4)                The complainants in proof of  their   case filed  their affidavit evidence  and got Exs. A1 to A3 marked  while the respondent filed the affidavit evidence of   Smt. Ch. Vanaja and got Exs. B1 to B4 marked.    

5)                The Dist. Forum after considering the evidence placed on record opined that  the complainants obtained his signature when he was in hospital  evident from  Ex. B1 hospital record, and therefore  it was doubtful  and when the chit was closed in the year 1999  they  having filed the complaint in the year 2007  barred by limitation.  Therefore the complaints were dismissed without costs. 

6)                Aggrieved by the said decision, the complainants preferred the appeals  contending that the Dist. Forum did not appreciate either facts or law in correct perspective.    It failed to consider the amounts that were received on various dates and finally under  acknowledgement which was not proved to be forged or fabricated and the respondent being the Managing Director  attending to the affairs of the chit fund company,  on the death of  her husband,  ought to have paid the amounts.  The acknowledgement was dt. 18.11.2005 and the complaints were  filed within the period of limitation, and therefore the complaints were  liable to be allowed.

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 an undisputed fact that the complainants  subscribed to the chit as narrated above.  According to them  they  contributed  as shown in the pass books vide entries in the pass books.   They allege  that  as chit fund company became financially unviable  closed its business and when  they were insisting for payment of amount  the erstwhile Managing Director  Sri CH. Saraiah, husband of the  respondent  refunded certain amounts on various dates vide receipts and finally gave an  acknowledgement/undertaking dt. 15.11.2005.    It may be stated that the acknowledgement  is on the letter head of the chit fund company.   The signature of the  Managing Director finds a place.   The acknowledgement bears the stamp of the chit fund company and  CH. Saraiah singed as Managing Director in the space left for his signature as Managing Director.   There are two witnesses in the said document.     Minutes  and Resolutions of the Company Board of  Directors  dt. 5.3.1989  authorised  Sri CH. Saraiah  to be the foreman as well as Managing Director to deal with legal proceedings and administrative affairs.  Clause 4 reads :  “(4). to chalk out the recovery programme for purpose of speed recoveries. (5). to conduct agents meeting for purpose of business development.  (6)  to file suits and complaints against the defaulting  subscribers for recovery of money from time to time”.    

On his death  his wife  Smt. Vanaja was appointed as Managing Director and Foreman evidenced under resolution   dt. 12.12.2005. 

9)                 Sri CH. Saraiah, Managing Director was afflicted from   Bells Palsy.  He took treatment in various hospitals evidenced from hospital record Ex. B1 dt.  27.10.2005.    He died on 18.11.2005.    In view of his ailment  the contention is that   CH. Saraiah could not have signed the acknowledgements   as he was struck with paralysis.     It may be stated herein that he had only Bells Palsy and obviously could attend to his work as well as sign.    If really the complainants did not pay the amount though  evident from the pass books/receipts  the respondent who is now the Managing Director  ought to  have filed the affidavit evidence of the  clerk whose initials finds a place  in all these receipts  stating that no amount was paid.  Since she was having accounts, day books and ledgers  she could have filed  in order to prove that these payments were not true and they were created.    Equally the respondent could have examined the attestors   to the acknowledgement/undertaking   to prove that signature on  it is not that of  Saraiah.    She could have taken steps by sending the acknowledgement/undertaking  to a  handwriting expert  in order to find out  whether the signature  on it  belongs to  CH. Saraiah.    The evidence of the complainants was uncontroverted by any evidence to the contrary.    The respondent is capable of running  a chit fund company on the death of her husband ought to have filed the records  to  prove that the complainants  did not join as  members   nor contributed the amounts, and that the payments made by  them were not true, equally so  acknowledgement/undertaking.  When she could not prove all these facts,  it cannot be said that acknowledgement/undertaking  is a forgery.   Even the Dist. Forum while observing that  the respondent could not prove that the signature  is a forgery by sending to an expert etc., however, solely on the ground that he could not have singed  in view of his admission  in the hospital  cannot be up-held.   The documents do  not reveal that  he was admitted as in-patient  in the hospital  and had taken treatment.   In Ex. B1 there was a categorical mention that he had only left side Bells Palsy and the treatment suggested was  clinical treatment and facial massage.   He was admitted on 17.11.2005 at 10.05 a.m. and  was discharged on the same day.

10)              While the acknowledgement/undertaking  was  dt.  15.11.2005  he was admitted in the hospital on 17.11.2005 with a diagnosis  DM uncontrolled.   He was treated conservatively  and discharged on the same day.   This was two days after the acknowledgement/undertaking.   Therefore the contention that he could not have signed on acknowledgement/undertaking  is far from truth. 

11)               To sum up, the complainants could prove that the complainants having joined in the chit contributed and in the light of acknowledgement/undertaking they were  entitled to the amount.   Since acknowledgement/undertaking  is on  15.11.2005  and the complaints  were filed on 14.11.2007  they were within limitation. They were  not barred by limitation.   The Dist. Forum did not appreciate these facts  in correct perspective. 

12)               In the result the appeals  are  allowed setting aside the  order of the Dist. Forum.  Consequently the complaints are allowed directing the respondent to  refund  the amount covered under the chits  as  follows :

with interest @ 9% p.a., from the date of complaint viz., 14.11.2007  till the date of realization together with costs of Rs. 2,000/- each set.  Time for compliance four weeks. 

1)      _______________________________

PRESIDENT                 

2)      ________________________________

 MEMBER           

3)      ________________________________

 MEMBER           

08/08/2011

*pnr

UP LOAD – O.K.