<br /> COMPLAINT FILED: 31.12.2008<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> <br /> 13th FEBRUARY 2009<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT <br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> SRI.A.MUNIYAPPA MEMBER <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO.2862/2008<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT Sri.Prashanth Kumar N,S/o Narayan, Residing at No.27,Survey No.37, Besides S.V.K Kalyana Mantapa,Bangalore – 560 056.Advocate – Sri.H.G.RevannaV/s.<br /> OPPOSITE PARTY M/s.Shriram Chits (Karnataka) Pvt. Ltd.,K.H Road Branch,No.69/3, 2nd Floor,Above H & R Johnson India Ltd.,Mission Road,Bangalore – 560 027.Represented by its ManagerAdvocate – Sri.Prashant T.Pandit.<br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to pay a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- and for such other relief’s on an allegations of deficiency in service. <br /> <br /> The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under:<br /> <br /> Complainant subscribed for two chits of Rs.1,00,000/- each and took ticket No.2 & 3 from OP. He was regular and prompt in making payment of the monthly subscription of Rs.5,000/-. Complainant bid the chit of Rs.1,00,000/- with respect to ticket No.2 on 23.07.2005 agreeing to forego Rs.40,000/- and OP paid remaining Rs.60,000/-. Then on 24.08.2006 he agreed to forego Rs.28,900/- with respect to ticket No.3 and agreed to receive Rs.71,100/- from OP. OP took several signatures of the complainant on blank forms including that of the surety and guarantor. Actually complainant was badly in need of the said amount but unfortunately OP failed to release the amount in time. Hence complainant made alternate arrangement then wrote a letter to OP on 26.10.2006 to cancel the bid of the auction held on 24.08.2006. When his request was not considered then he made subsequent correspondence on 19.12.2007 and 15.05.2007. Again there was no response. OP has played fraud in merging the amount of only Rs.26,000/- as against Rs.33,466/- remitted by the complainant and also failed to give dividend. When complainant made repeated requests and demands to OP to set right the accounts it preferred a civil dispute before Deputy Registrar for the recovery of Rs.28,351/- which is pending for trial. The hostile attitude of the OP has caused him both mental agony and financial loss. Hence he felt deficiency in service. Under the circumstances he is advised to file this complaint and sought for the reliefs accordingly.<br /> <br /> 2. On appearance, OP filed the version denying all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. Complainant after the receipt of prize amount failed to make payment of the same and become the chronic defaulter. The repeated requests and demands made by the OP went in futile. Hence OP is advised to raise a civil dispute before Deputy Registrar of Chits, Bangalore. Complainant appeared before the said Forum. Hence now he can’t file a parallel complaint before this Forum. When the matter has reached the competent authority, this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint. The other allegations made by the complainant are all frivolous. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Among these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.<br /> <br /> 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP has also filed the affidavit evidence along with the documents. Then the arguments were heard.<br /> <br /> 4. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under:<br /> Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant has Proved <br /> the deficiency in service on the part of <br /> the OP?<br /> <br /> Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is <br /> entitled for the relief’s now claimed?<br /> <br /> Point No. 3 :- To what Order?<br /> <br /> <br /> 5. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on:<br /> <br /> Point No.1:- In Negative<br /> Point No.2:- Negative<br /> Point No.3:- As per final Order.<br /> <br /> <br /> R E A S O N S<br /> <br /> <br /> 6. At the outset it is not at dispute that the complainant subscriber for two chits and taken the ticket No.2 & 3 each for Rs.1,00,000/- repayable in a monthly subscription of Rs.5,000/-. Now the grievance of the complainant is that as per his chit No.3 is concerned he agreed to forego Rs.28,900/- and willing to receive Rs.71,100/-. As regards chit No.2 he agreed to forego Rs.40,000/- and consented for the balance of Rs.60,000/-. With all that OP failed to pay the said amount the prize money in time. Hence he faced financial difficulties. Under the circumstances he wrote a letter to the OP to cancel the bid dated 24.08.2006, but there was no response from the OP. Then he wrote the reminders subsequently. Again there was no response. Hence he felt deficiency in service.<br /> <br /> 7. As against this it is specifically contended by the OP that the complainant after the receipt of the prize money failed to make payment of the monthly installments. In spite of the repeated requests and demands made by the OP he has become the chronic defaulter. Hence it raised the dispute before Deputy Registrar of chits as contemplated under the Chit Fund Act and rules. Of course complainant admitted the fact of OP having filed the said dispute for the recovery of Rs.28,351/-. That means to say the present dispute on hand has already reached the competent Forum wherein the litigating parities both in this complaint and that dispute is one and same relief claimed is identical and also with respect to the said chit.<br /> <br /> 8. Under such circumstances when the matter has reached the competent jurisdictional Forum complainant would have waited for the result in the said dispute. What made him to file this complaint before this Forum is not known. The defence if any the complainant has got can be pleaded and placed before the Deputy Registrar of chits a competent authority to deal with the dispute under Chit Fund Act and rules. When such an equally efficacious relief is readily available to the complainant he can’t seek for the parallel trial for the same cause. Approach of the complainant does not appear to be fair and honest. It is said he who seeks equity must do equity must come with clean hands. But here the approach of the complainant is otherwise.<br /> <br /> 9. The defence set out by the OP finds support from the contents of the undisputed documents like statement of accounts. When complainant himself is a defaulter he can’t allege the deficiency in service. If there is a dispute with regard to payment of balance of principal amount and interest accrued there on or with regard to the dividend and the prize money and repayment of the consolidated amount in due it will amounts to a civil dispute. <br /> <br /> 10. On the plain reading of the allegations made in the complaint it didn’t spell out the case of hiring of services and suffering from deficiency. Rather it disclosed a case relating to settlement of account and for the balance in due on the basis of the account. In our view complainant did not fall with in the ambit of section.2 (1) (c) & (e) of the C.P Act. As the matter has already reached the Deputy Registrar of Chits, Bangalore complainant can very well redress his grievance. The other allegations made by the complainant appear to be frivolous. What is the basis for the complainant to claim Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation is not known. Viewed from any angle complaint appears to be devoid of merits. Hence complainant is not entitled for the relief claimed. Accordingly we answer point Nos.1 & 2 in negative and proceed to pass the following: <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is dismissed. In view of the nature of dispute no order as to costs.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 13th day of February 2009.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> Vln* <br />