BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : HYDERABAD.
FA No. 32 OF 2016 AGAINST CCSr. No.2365 OF 2015
ON THE FILE OF DISTRICT FORUM- KARIMNAGAR
Between :
Gudipati Venkata Krishna Reddy,
S/o. Raghava Reddy, aged 58 years,
Occ: Retired employee, residing at
H.No.3-7-595, Vavitalapally,
Karimnagar. ….Appellant / Complainant
AND :
M/s. Margadarsi Chit Fund Limited,
Karimnagar branch, represented through
Its Branch Manager, D.No.2-6-213,
Nalumanchu Complex, Mukarrampura,
IB Road, Karimnagar. …Respondent / Opposite party
Counsel for the Appellant / Complainant : Party in person
Counsel for the Opposite party : Sri P.Dharmesh
Hon’ble Sri Justice B.N.Rao Nalla … President
&
Sri Patil Vithal Rao … Member
,
Monday, the Sixth day of February
Two thousand Seventeen
Oral Order : (Per Hon’ble Sri. Patil Vithal Rao, Member).
***
The Appellant herein is the Complainant and the Respondent is the Opposite Party in CCSR no.2365 dated 17.12.2015 before the District Forum, Karimnagar [for short, “the District Forum’]. He filed the said complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the grounds, in brief, that he is a subscriber of the Chit bearing no.LT28MF-13 for face value of Rs.1,00,000/-with monthly installments of Rs.2,000/- each for a period of 50 months. In the Chit auction held by the Opposite Party Company in the month of October, 1997 he became prized subscriber for Rs.55,000/- having agreed to forgo Rs.45,000/-. Further, he invested Rs.20,000/- with the Opposite Party Company for a period of 3 years under the Cumulative Scheme with maturity value of Rs.32,000/- but, as per Complainant, the Opposite Party Company has withheld the said amount of Rs.20,000/- and released the balance prized amount only, in the month of May, 1998 illegally amounting to deficiency in service resulting in mental agony to him. Therefore, he sought refund of the fixed deposit amount of Rs.32,000/- with compensation of Rs.68,000/-, in total Rs.1,00,000/-, against the Opposite Party Company. Along with the complaint, the complainant has filed the documents viz., the original Fixed Deposit [Memorandum] dated 28.05.1998, Chit no.LT28MF 13 intimation letter dated 29.05.1998, office copy of legal notice dated 26.11.2015 with original postal receipt and acknowledgment, and the original reply notice dated 30.11.2015 from the Opposite Party.
2. Basing on the contents of the reply notice dated 30.11.2015, referred supra, the learned District Forum passed the order dated 22.12.2015, now impugned, as under:-
As per the reply notice of the opposite party / Chit Fund, the complainant suppressed material fact of execution petition pending against him.
Secondly, it seems Rs.92,225/- is still due to opposite party as per the said reply.
The case is pertaining to 1998 transaction. The cause of action is not convincing, hence barred by limitation.
So the complaint is rejected.
3. Having aggrieved by the said order the complainant has come up with the present appeal under Section-15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the grounds, interalia, that it was passed without perusing any record and without putting the Opposite Party on notice and that thus it is based without any cogent proof. Infact, there is a continuing cause of action for the complainant but the District Forum without understanding it arrived at a wrong conclusion against the principles of natural justice. Therefore, he sought to set aside the impugned order by allowing the present appeal.
4. Perused the written arguments and heard both the learned counsel.
5. Now the point for consideration is that:
whether the impugned order is erroneous and illegal and that as such liable to be set aside?
6. Point :- It evident from the record that the complainant has invested a sum of Rs.20,000/- with the Opposite Party Company under Cumulative Scheme on 28.05.1998 with maturity value of Rs.32,000/-. He is also a subscriber of the Chit LT 28 MF-13 with Chit Value of Rs.1,00,000/- of the Opposite Party Company. In the Chit auction, he became successful bidder having agreed to forgo Rs.45,000/- out of Rs.1,00,000/- repayable in monthly installments of Rs.2,000/-for 50 installments.
7. As per the reply notice dated 30.11.2015, got issued by the Opposite Party Company through their counsel, it was contended that the complainant kept the said Fixed Deposit of Rs.20,000/-as pledge towards the future liability of the chit and withdrew the balance prize amount and that later on paid only 19 installments in the chit i.e., up to December-1998 and thereafter committed default and that as such the Opposite Party Company adjusted the Fixed Deposit amount by exercising it’s lien over it for the proceeds towards 20th installment. It is further stated in the reply notice that for the balance amount a civil suit was filed against the complainant and the same was decreed and that when execution proceedings were initiated therein, he has set up the present claim on frivolous and untenable grounds.
8. During the course of arguments the learned defence counsel has submitted copies of judgments in O.S.no.129/2001 of the Principle Judicial Civil Judge, Karimnagar, A.S.no.11/2004 of the IIIrd Additional District Judge, Karimnagar and order passed in I.A.no.2285/2008 in O.S.no.76/2007 by the Principle Judicial Civil Judge, Karimnagar. All these documents show that the suit in O.S.no.129/2001 was decreed on 19.01.2004 infavour of the Opposite Party Company herein and that the appeal preferred against it in A.s.11/2004 by the complainant herein and his three guarantors in the chit transaction, was dismissed on 30.06.2006. Thereafter the complainant has filed the suit in O.S.no.76/2007 against the Opposite Party Company herein for recovery of the amount covered by the Fixed Deposit. During the pendency of the said suit the Opposite Party Company herein filed I.A.no.2285/2008 under section -11 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the same was allowed on 19.01.2012 by the Principle Judicial Civil Judge, Karimnagar by holding that the suit was hit by the principle of Resjudicata.
9. The complainant did not dispute all these facts in the present appeal. Therefore, we hold that the complainant has approached the District Forum by suppressing the material facts and with unclean hands. Therefore, the District Forum, in our considered opinion, has rightly held that there is no cause of action and also the claim was barred by limitation and accordingly rejected the complaint. In this view of the matter, we hold that the impugned order is neither erroneous nor illegal and that as such deserves no interference. Thus the appeal is devoid of any merits and that as such liable to be dismissed.
10. The point is answered accordingly against the Appellant.
11. In the result, the appeal is dismissed with costs of Rs.2,000/-.
PRESIDENT MEMBER
Dt. 6 .02.2017
