D.o.F:25/3/2010
D.o. Order:30/01/2013
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD
CC.75/2010
Dated this, the 30th day of January 2013.
PRESENT:
SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT
SMT.P.RAMADEVI : MEMBER
SMT.K.G.BEENA : MEMBER
H.V.Ramachandra,
S/o late Venkita Ramana
R/at Ambili, Thoyammal, : complainant.
Po.Kanhangad, Hosdurg,Kasaragod Dt.
(in person)
1. Puthukkai Sree Vainingat Iswarante
kshethra Committee,rep by its President
2.C.V.Krishnan, S/o Koman, Treasurer
3..Balachandran, S/o Krishnan,Secretary,
All are R/at Vainingat,Puthukkai , Uppilikka. Po
4. V.Subramanyan, S/o Kunhundan, : Opposite parties
Kizhakkankozhummal,Nileshwar.Po,
Kasaragod Dt.
5. V.Kunhikrishnan, S/o Krishnan Nair,
Po. Haripuram,Anandheshawaram, Kasaragod Dt.
(now deceased and deleted from party array)
6. Pradeep Kumar, S/o V.Appukuttan,
Po.Chayyom, Via.Nileshwar.
7. Unnikrishnan C.V, S/o T.V.Krishnan,
Thayannur, Anandashram Via.
8. V.Kubumundhan, S/o Muruchi,
Nileshwar,Kasaragod Dt.
9. P.V.Prabhakaran, S/o V.Kunhikoman, : Opposite parties
Po. Chayyom. Kasaragod.
(Op.7&10 Adv.Rajeev.K,Hosdurg)
10. T.V.Krishnan , S/o Kunhambu,
Po.Thayannur,Kasaragod.
11. C.V.Ramakrishnan,
S/o V.Madhavan, Uppilikka. Po
Nileshwar.
12. C.V.Rajan, S/o Karthambu,
Po.Thayannur,Kasaragod.
13. M.K.Anilkumar, S/o Kunhikrishnan,
Po.Haripuram, Kasaragod.
(Adv.K.Kumaran Nair,Kasaragod)
ORDER
SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT
The complaint is filed with an application u/s 24A of the Consumer Protection Act to condone the delay caused in filing the complaint. After hearing the complainant the delay is condoned as per order in IA 98/10 and the complaint is admitted on file.
2. The case of the complaint in brief is that he joined in two chitties conducted by opposite parties 1 to 13. But they appropriated the chitty instalments he paid . The total chitty amount to be received on maturity was Rs.320,000/- . In that he joined on 11-1-2006 and remitted monthly installments of Rs.20000/-. He remitted 12 monthly instalments of Rs.20000/- and 13th instalments of Rs 19,000/-. Thus he paid Rs 2,59000/- in the said chitty. In the second chitty he joined on 14-1-2006 and the total amount to be received in that chitty was Rs.10,5000/-. In the said chitty he remitted 14 instalments of Rs.5000/- each totaling Rs.70,000/- .
3 Initially the complaint was instituted against opposite parties 1 to 3 only. On admitting the complaint notices were issued to opposite parties. Notice to opposite party No.2 is served. But he remained absent. Hence set exparte. Then complainant filed IA 142/10 to implead supplemental opposite party No.4. It is allowed and supplemental opposite party No.4 impleaded . OP.NO.4 appeared in response to the notice and filed version. Subsequently notices to opposite parties 1&3 were effected through publication. But they remained absent. Hence opposite parties 1 &3 were set exparte. Later complainant filed IA 11/11 to implead supplemental opposite parties Nos.5 to 14. It is also allowed and notices were issued to supplemental opposite parties 5 to 13 . Since opposite parties 11&14 are same person. OP.No.14 removed from party array. In response to the notice the opposite parties 6,9,10,12,13 filed version. The other opposite parties did not file version. Thereafter complainant filed a memo to remove opposite party No.5 from the party array on the ground that opposite party No.5 is no more and he is not seeking any relief against 5th opposite party.
4. Version of 4th opposite party.
Opposite party No.4 filed version . According to him he neither conducted any chit fund nor prompted the complainant to join in the chitty. He was never a manager or member of the committee of chit fund run by the opposite parties 1,2&3. Opposite party No.2 was the President and Balachandran(OP,No.3) was Secretary of the Chit Fund and entire assets and records of the chit were maintained and utilized by them. 4th opposite party was working as a clerk for a temporary period on daily wages under opposite parties 1 to 3. 4th opposite party had no control over the day to day affairs of the office run by them. There was no privity of contract as creditor and debtor between the complainant and 4th opposite party. Similar complaints filed by 3rd parties against the opposite party were entered in dismissal earlier exonerating him. The complainant is not a consumer and there is no contract, service or relationship between him and the opposite party. Complainant has not paid any amount to him as to pay it to opposite parties 1to 3. The claim of the complainant is without any basis and it is highly excessive. 4th opposite party has not caused any damages , mental pain or agony to the complainant. The alleged amounts claimed as deposit and interest are also without any basis and not correct. 4th opposite party has not done any thing detrimental to the interest of the complainant. Nobody contacted or visited his house and he has not promised anything to anybody. Hence the complaint deserves to be dismissed.
5. Version of Opposite parties 6 &9
According to Opposite parties 6 &9 they are not the members of the Kshetra committee. It is only after receiving the notice from this Forum they found that their signatures were forged and included in the list of office bearers of opposite party No.1 Kshetra committee. They had not conducted any chitty. Hence they are unnecessary parties to the proceedings.
6. Version of Opposite parties 7,10 &12:
According to the version filed by Opposite parties 7,10 &12 they have no connection with OP.NO.1 Sree Vairajathan Easwaran Kshethra Committee. They have not signed in the bye law of OP.NO.1. The bye-law submitted before the different commercial banks for opening accounts are different . The bye law registered with No.93/IV/06 before the Nileshwar Sub Registrar Office is a fake one and that is not used anywhere. The names of committee members mentioned in the said bye law is also different. Hence they are not liable to pay any amount to the complainant.
7 Version of opposite party No.13.:
According to 13th opposite party he had no knowledge about or any relation with the chitty mentioned in the complaint. 2nd opposite party has forged the signature of 13th opposite party in some documents and also one of its bye –law. OP.NOP.1 had got more than one bye law and Articles of Association. The 2nd opposite party had included the name of 13th opposite party in one of the bye law of the said committee. About 700 cases are filed against opposite parties 2&3 and in none of those cases Opposite party No.13 is a party. Complainant impleaded opposite party No.13 in order to coerce him knowing that he is a government servant.
8. Complainant filed proof affidavit as PW1 and Exts.A1&A2 is marked on his side. He faced cross examination by the learned counsels for opposite parties 4,7,9,10,12,&13, On the side of opposite parties, Opposite party No.4 did not adduce any oral evidence. OP.NO.6& OP.NO.9 filed separate affidavits reiterating that is stated in their version as DWs 1&2. Opposite party No.13 filed affidavit as DW3 and OP.NO.7 filed affidavit for himself and on behalf of opposite parties 10and 12 also as DW4. Both sides heard and documents perused.
9. Now the points arises for consideration are that whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in not refunding the chitty instalments to the complainant and what is the relief and cost?
10. The case of the complainant is that he had deposited Rs.259,000/- in one chitty and Rs.70,000/- in the other chitty conducted by opposite parties 1 to 13. Exts.A1 &A2 are the pass books issued by opposite party NO.1 committee evidencing the payments of chitty instalments. The passbooks shows that the complainant deposited tota Rs.259,000/- +Rs.70,000/- Rs.3,29,000/- in the chitty.
11. The case of all the committee members ( i.e opposite parties No.5 to 13 )is that 2nd opposite party forged their signatures and concocted the bye law. But it is very important to note that none of the committee members ie, Opposite parties No.5 to 13 ever attempted to initiate any criminal proceedings against 2nd & 3rd opposite parties against the alleged forging of their signatures . The silence of the opposite parties No.5 to 15 to initiate any legal proceedings against 2nd & 3rd opposite parties who alleged to have forged their signatures itself show that they were the active members of Vairajathan Easwaran Kshethra Committee and they were actually engaged in running the chitty. So they are also liable to redress the grievance of the complainant. Since 5th opposite party is deceased ,on the application of the complainant he is deleted from party array and therefore he is exonerated from the liabilities.
In the result complaint is allowed and the opposite parties 2,3,4,6,7,8,9,10,11,12 and13, being the committee members of the Society and opposite party No.1 being the committee itself are equally liable to pay Rs.3,29,000/- to the complainant with interest @9 per annum from the date of complaint till payment along with a cost of Rs.7000/- . Since 5th opposite party is expired on the request of the complainant he is deleted from party array and therefore he is exonerated from the liabilities and his share can be deducted during apportionment of the claim amount. Time for compliance is limited to 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order. Failing which the amount of Rs.329,000/- will carry interest @12 per centage from today till payment.
.
Ext.
A1&A2- chitty pass books
PW1-. H.V.Ramachandra,- complainant
DW1-PradeepKumar.P.V- OP.No.6
DW2-P.V.Prabhakaran-OP.NO.9
DW3- Anilkumar.M.K- Op.No.13
DW4-Unnikrishnan.C.V OP.NO.7
Sd/ Sd/ Sd/
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
eva
/Forwarded by Order/
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
