The complainant was a chit subscriber of respondent firm and remitted the entire chit amount. The total sala of the chit was Rs.48,000/- and it was commenced on 23.10.01 and terminated on 23.9.05. Out of Rs.48,000/- the complainant is entitled for Rs.40,000/-. The respondents are not entitled to get foreman commission because they failed to release the entire amount. The non-payment of the amount shows deficiency in service on the part of respondents. Hence the complaint.

 

            2. The respondents filed counter by stating that the prize amount of the chit in question is only Rs.40,000/- and the kuri subscriber is only entitled to get Rs.40,000/-. The complainant is demanding Rs.48,000/- which is not maintainable. The said kuri was in fact subscribed by the husband of the complainant. The kuri payments were made by her husband and entire transaction made was by her husband. The said kuri is a benami transaction. The husband of the complainant had stood as surety for some other kuries conducted by the respondents. These subscribers for whom he had stood as surety had defaulted the kuri payments. Hence this amount was retained as security. There is absolutely no deficiency in service.

 

            3. The points for consideration are:

(1)   Is there any deficiency in service?

(2)   If so, reliefs and costs.

 

            4. The evidence consists of Ext. P1 only. No evidence adduced by the respondents.

 

            5. Points: The complainant produced Ext. P1 passbook to show that she had remitted entire instalments of the chit. It was terminated on 23.9.05. But the complainant paid the last instalment amount on 12.9.05. There is the seal of “closed”. According to the complainant, she is entitled to get Rs.48,000/- with 12% interest. The respondents stated that she is entitled for only Rs.40,000/-. They further stated that the said chit transaction was completely between the husband of the complainant and the respondent firm. The payments were made by her husband and it is a benami transaction. According to the respondents, they had retained the kuri amount as security for some other transactions in which the husband of the complainant has stood as surety. This contention of the respondents is not at all relevant. As per Ext. P1 the kuri subscriber is Deena Lawrence that is the complainant herself and there is nothing to show that the chit amount was paid by the husband of the complainant. As per the document the entire transaction were between the complainant and the respondent firm. So the act of the respondents in retaining the amount after the transaction of the chit is deficiency in service on their part and the complainant is entitled to get the amount remitted by her and also the dividend. There is no evidence brought by the respondents to show the transactions between the husband of the complainant the respondent firm. There is also no evidence to show that the husband of the complainant stood as surety for some other transactions. They simply alleged some facts but failed to prove the same. 

 

            6. In the result, this complaint is allowed and the respondents are directed to return Rs.48,000/- (Rupees forty eight thousand only) with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from 24.9.95 till realization with cost of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only) within two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

 

             Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, this the 5th day of March 2010.