BEFORE THE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

AT  HYDERABAD.

FA  628 of 2009   against C.C.  36/2008,  Dist. Forum, Warangal 

Between:

Kunduru Subhashini

W/o. Jammula Ranga Reddy

Age: 58 years, Pvt. Employee

H.No. 5-8-73/1, Reddy Complex

Lashkar Bazar, Hanamkonda

Now at D.No. 1-8-467

Madali Narsimha Reddy Qtrs

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.

FA  630 of 2009   against C.C.  38/2008,  Dist. Forum, Warangal 

Between:

Kunduru Subhashini

W/o. Jammula Ranga Reddy

Age: 58 years, Pvt. Employee

H.No. 5-8-73/1, Reddy Complex

Lashkar Bazar, Hanamkonda

Now at D.No. 1-8-467

Madali Narsimha Reddy Qtrs

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.

          FA  631 of 2009   against C.C.  39/2008,  Dist. Forum, Warangal 

Between:

Kunduru Subhashini

W/o. Jammula Ranga Reddy

Age: 58 years, Pvt. Employee

H.No. 5-8-73/1, Reddy Complex

Lashkar Bazar, Hanamkonda

Now at D.No. 1-8-467

Madali Narsimha Reddy Qtrs

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.

          FA  633 of 2009   against C.C.  41/2008,  Dist. Forum, Warangal 

Between:

Kunduru Subhashini

W/o. Jammula Ranga Reddy

Age: 58 years, Pvt. Employee

H.No. 5-8-73/1, Reddy Complex

Lashkar Bazar, Hanamkonda

Now at D.No. 1-8-467

Madali Narsimha Reddy Qtrs

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.

FA  634 of 2009   against C.C.  42/2008,  Dist. Forum, Warangal 

Between:

Kunduru Subhashini

W/o. Jammula Ranga Reddy

Age: 58 years, Pvt. Employee

H.No. 5-8-73/1, Reddy Complex

Lashkar Bazar, Hanamkonda

Now at D.No. 1-8-467

Madali Narsimha Reddy Qtrs

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.

FA  635 of 2009   against C.C.  43/2008,  Dist. Forum, Warangal 

Between:

Kunduru Subhashini

W/o. Jammula Ranga Reddy

Age: 58 years, Pvt. Employee

H.No. 5-8-73/1, Reddy Complex

Lashkar Bazar, Hanamkonda

Now at D.No. 1-8-467

Madali Narsimha Reddy Qtrs

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 6 in number  are filed by the unsuccessful complainant 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 she   joined as  member 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 she 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  she 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 complaint she denied payment of amount  and acknowledgement dt. 15.11.2005 as forged and fabricated document.   The complaint was hopelessly barred by limitation.   In fact the complainant was appointed as a foreman  in the chit fund company and filed civil suits on behalf of the  chit fund company against the members  for realization of amount vide  O.S. No. 75/2002  on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Warangal,  and some suits on the file of  Principal  Junior Civil Judge, Warangal.   She also filed execution applications for recovery of the amounts  and did not account for.   After gathering information  it would file additional written version.   By virtue of orders of   1^st  Additional  Senior Civil Judge, Warangal in O.S. No. 48/2001  the office was seized.    Misusing the official position acknowledgement was fabricated.    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.  Later 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 complaint with costs.

4)                The complainant in proof of her  case filed her  affidavit evidence and got Exs. A1 to A8  marked while the respondent filed the affidavit evidence of    Smt. Ch. Vanaja  and got Exs. B1 to B4 marked.  During the course of hearing the appeal the complainant filed an application to receive certain documents by way of additional evidence.  The application was allowed and they were assigned as Exs. A9 to A11.

5)                The Dist. Forum after considering the evidence placed on record opined that  though the complainant filed suits on behalf of the chit fund company  for realization of amount evident from Ex. B2  authorised by the Board to act as Foreman  and that she waited  as far as her complaint is concerned till closure of chit period obviously  obtained his signature when he was in hospital  evident from  Ex. B1 hospital record, and therefore  it was doubtful.  When the chit was closed in the year 1999  and the complaint  having filed in the year 2007  was barred by limitation.  Therefore the complaint was dismissed without costs. 

6)                Aggrieved by the said decision, the complainant preferred the appeal 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 Ex. A8 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.  The complaint was filed within the period of limitation.   Therefore the complaint was 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 complainant basing  on the  Board Resolution dt. 4.4.2001  Ex. B2 was appointed as foreman  and authorised to file various suits  O.S. 75/2002 on the file of  Principal Senior Civil Judge, Warangal  and  O.S. No. 1526/2004 on the file of Principal  Junior Civil Judge, Warangal against the members who have committed default and obtained decrees vide copies of decrees Exs. B3 & B4 respectively.   She also alleges that she also subscribed to the chit for a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- payable in  50 monthly instalments at Rs. 5,000/- per month commencing from January, 1998.   According to her  she contributed a sum of Rs. 75,000/- up to March, 1999 vide entries in the pass book Ex. A1.    She alleges that  as chit fund company became financially unviable  closed its  business and when she was insisting for payment of amount  the erstwhile Managing Director  Sri CH. Saraiah, husband of the  respondent  refunded Rs. 10,000/-  on various dates vide receipts Exs. A2 to A7, and finally gave an undertaking Ex. A8 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  Ex. A10 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  Ex. A11 dt. 12.12.2005. 

9)                 Sri CH. Saraiah, Managing Director had  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 acknowledgement Ex. A8  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 complainant did not pay the amount  evident from Ex. A2 to A7  the respondent who is now the Managing Director  could have filed the affidavit evidence of the  clerk whose initials finds a place  in all these receipts  stating that no amount was paid.  Since he was having account, day book and ledger  she could have filed  in order to prove that these payments were not true and they were created and taking advantage of the position of the complainant as Foreman.    Equally the respondent could have examined the attestors   to Ex. A8  to prove that signature on Ex. A8  is a forgery.   She could have taken steps by sending the said acknowledgement/undertaking  to a  handwriting expert  in order to find out  whether the signature  on Ex. A8 belongs to  CH. Saraiah or not.    The evidence of the complainant 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 complainant  did not join as a member  nor contributed the amounts, and that the payments made by her were not true, equally so Ex. A8.  When she could not prove any of  these facts it cannot be said that Ex. A8 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  on 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 singed on Ex. A8  is far from true. 

11)               To sum up, the complainant could prove that the complainant having joined in the chit contributed the amounts,  and in the light of Ex. A8  she was entitled to the amount.   Since  acknowledgement/undertaking  Ex. A8 is dated 15.11.2005  and the complaint   having filed on 14.11.2007   it was within limitation.  It was 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.