KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACADU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL 646/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 11.12.2007 Appeal filed against the order passed by the CDRF,Thrissur in OP.554/2002 PRESENT SHRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER 1. Guild Kuries & Loans (P) Ltd., West Pallithamam Building, Karunakaran Nambiyar Road, : APPELLANTS Round North, Thrissur – 1, Represented by Chairman. 2. K.S.Ranjan, Chairman, M/s Guild Kuries & Loans (P) Ltd., West Pallithamam Building, Karunakaran Nambiyar Road Round North, Thrissur – 1, 3. A.K.Joshi Nathan, Director, M/s. Guild Kuries & Loans (P) Ltd., West Pallithamam Building, Karunakaran Nambiyar Road, Round North, Thrissur – 1, (By Adv.K.S.Jayachandran) Vs Padmaprabha Jyothi P.V., : RESPONDENT Advocate, Pattali House, P.O.,Valappad Beach, Thrissur. JUDGMENT SHRI.M.V.VISWANATHNA : JUDICIAL MEMBER The above appeal is preferred from the order dated 19.5.03 passed by the CDRF, Thrissur in OP.554/02 which was filed by the respondent herein as complainant against the appellants as opposite parties claiming refund of the amount remitted by the complainant as a subscriber of the Kuri conducted by the 1st opposite party and also for interest at the rate of 18% from January 1996 with compensation of Rs.5000/-. The lower Forum allowed the case of the complainant to certain extent and thereby 1st opposite party Company are directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.15000/- with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from 1.1.96 till the date of reaslisation and a cost of Rs.500. Aggrieved by the said order the aforesaid appeal is preferred by the opposite parties therein. 2. We heard the counsel for the appellants/opposite parties and that the respondent who appeared in person. The learned counsel for the appellants relied on clause 12 and 13 of the Kuri Variyola (pass book) and submitted that the respondent/complainant is only entitled to get the actual amount which was remitted by him as a subscriber. It is also submitted that there is no provision to pay interest on the amount from the date of default. Thus, the appellants requested to setaside the impugned order passed by the lower Forum. On the otherhand, the respondent who is an advocate by profession supported the findings and conclusions of the lower Forum and requested for dismissal of the appeal. 3. The points that arise for consideration are:- 1) What is the correct amount due to the respondent/complainant with respect to the Chit (Kuri) covered by Ext. P1 passbook? 2) Is there occurred any deficiency in service on the part of the appellants/opposite parties in effecting payment of the amount which was remitted by the respondent/complainant by way of subscriptions to the kuri covered by P1 passbook? 3) Is there any sustainable ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the lower Forum? 4. Points 1 to 3:- Admittedly the respondent/complainant was a subscriber to the Kuri covered by the P1 passbook. The appellants/opposite parties are the Chairman and directors of the aforesaid Chit Company by name Guild Kuries & Loans (Pvt.) Ltd. As per the P1 passbook respondent/complainant as a subscriber is bound to make the payments towards Kuri subscriptions from March 1993 upto March 2002 and he was bound to make 110 installments at the rate of Rs.500/- after deducting dividends. There is no dispute that the respondent/complainant remitted installments upto and inclusive of 35th installments. Thus, the total amount including dividend ought to have been remitted by the complainant would come to Rs.70500/-. But in fact, the actual amount remitted by the complainant is only Rs.11893.80/-. The evidence on record would show that the respondent/complainant defaulted in making payments towards the Kuri subscriptions from 36th installments onwards. The case of the complainant that the appellants/opposite parties stopped/discontinued their Kuri business and they closed their business place cannot be believed or accepted. On the other hand, it can be seen that the appellant/opposite party Kuri company shifted their Registered office from Veliyannur to Thrissur-20. The P1 passbook produced from the side of the complainant would make it clear that subsequently the appellants had shifted their registered office from Veliyannur to Thrissur. The rubber seals affixed on P1 passbook would make it clear that the complainant remitted the subscriptions at the office of the appellants Kuri Company situated in Thrissur-20. So, the case of the appellants/opposite parties that the respondent/complainant committed default in making payments towards Kuri subscriptions can be accepted. We have no hesitation to hold that the respondent/complainant was a defaulter of the Kuri covered by P1 Passbook. 5. Clause 12 of P1 passbook stipulates forfeiture of Kuri with respect to defaulter of subscriptions. It would also shown that there will be automatic forfeiture of the Kuri ticket on default of 3 consecutive subscriptions. Clause 13 of P1 passbook stipulates the rights and privileges of the defaulted subscriber. Thus, the respondent/complainant is only entitled to get actual amount remitted by way of subscriptions. The stipulations in P1 pass book would make it clear that the respondent/complainant is not entitled to get the accrued dividend. If that be so, the respondent/complainant is only entitled to get actual amount of Rs.11893.80 which was remitted by the complainant as subscriber to the said Kuri covered by P1 Pass book. It is made clear that the respondent/complainant being defaulter is not entitled to get the accrued dividend. The lower Forum cannot be justified in ordering payment of Rs.15000/- to the respondent/complainant. Hence we hold that the respondent/complainant is only entitled to get Rs.11893.80. 6. Admittedly the appellants/opposite parties committed default in making the aforesaid payment of Rs.11893.80 on termination of the Kuri covered P1 Passbook. The Kuri was terminated in the month of March 2002. The aforesaid failure on the part of the appellants/opposite parties to pay the said amount would amount to deficiency in service. So, the aforesaid amount will carry interest at the rate of 18% per annum from 1.4.2002. The lower Forum is fully justified in awarding cost of Rs.500 to the complainant. So, the impugned order passed by the lower Forum is modified to the extent as indicated above. Thereby, the appellants/opposite parties are directed to pay to respondent/complainant a sum of Rs.11893.80 with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from 1.4.02 till the date of realisation with cost of Rs.500/-. The amount if any paid to the complainant during execution proceedings can be adjusted. In the result the appeal is disposed of as indicated above. There will be no order as to cost, as for as the present appeal is concerned. SHRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER | 
