IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Thursday the 30th day of June, 2011
Filed on 06.08.2009
Present
- Sri. Jimmy Korah (President)
- Sri. K. Anirudhan (Member)
- Smt. Shajitha Beevi (Member)
in
C.C.No. 267/09
between
Complainant:- Opposite Parties:-
Sri.Tomy, Valiyaveettil 1. Providence Chitty Fund
P.O. Mattancheri, Kochi – 2 Eramalloor.P.O., Cherthala.
Now Residing at: Valiyaveettil
Moolamkuzhy, Nasrath P.O. 2. Smt. Joys Antony
Kochi – 682 002 Nalampurackal House,
Represented by his wife Padinjattumkara Thekkum Muri
and Power of Attorney Holder: ThuravoorP.O., Cherthala
Jancy Tomy Valiyaveettil, Moolamkuzhy 3. Smt. Kathreena Augustine
Nasrath P.O., Kochi – 682 002 -do-
4. Sri.Varghese Antony
-do-
5. Sri.Wilson Antony
-do-
6. Sri.Sibi Augustine
-do-
7. Sri.Saji Augustine,
-do-
8. Smt.Sony, W/o Gibi
Thazheth Veedu
Ezhupunna Thekku P.O.
Cherthala Taluk
O R D E R
SRI. K. ANIRUDHAN (MEMBER)
Sri. Tomy has filed this complaint before the Forum through his Power of Attorney Holder alleging deficiency in service on the side of the opposite parties. The main allegations are as follows:- The opposite parties were engaged in the business of financial dealings by name and style M/s. Providence Chitty Fund, and M/s. Providence Finance at Eramalloor, which is administered as Partnership firm in giving money on the security of Gold and Land and the business of chit. They are also engaged in the business of accepting deposits from local people by offering attractive interest and the business of chit. On their assurance, he had joined the Chit vide No. 215 – 7th chital. At the time of joining the said chit the opposite parties had issued pass book to him after sealed and signed – (Chit No.215 – Chital No.7). Monthly remittance amount was Rs.2500/-. While so one of the Partner Sri.Augustine expired on 23.2.2008 and after that the legal heir of the said members ie. Opposite parties 2 to 8 are administered the firm. Since the opposite parties defaulted the repayment, he had requested the opposite parties to return the amount with interest. But the opposite parties have not turned up. The opposite parties had abanded the business and closed the firm in order to defeat the interest of the complainant. He had enquired about the said promoters. But it was learnt that the opposite parties were absconded. He has not obtained any relief from the opposite parties regarding the payment with interest. Hence this complaint.
2. Notices were issued to the opposite parties. Opposite parties 2, 3 and 6 to 8 entered appearance and filed version. Other opposite parties were set ex-parte.
3. In the version filed by the opposite parties 4 and 6, it is stated that the complaint is not maintainable, due to the reasons of non-joinder of necessary parties. The 7th opposite party has nothing to do with the business of the firm and 7th opposite party is never involved in the partnership. It is stated that they had retired from the said partnership business on 28.06.2007 and that that the partnership firms were reconstituted on the said day by including new parties and the business is being carried out by the newly included parties with effect from 29.06.2007. It is further stated that while they were partners along with Varghese Augustine, he had started to do business of his own in the similar nature and used to collect funds from outsiders for his own purpose, and misused the goodwill. They are not partners of the firm as on the date of cause of action and they have not received any amounts from the complainant. So they are not liable for the claim.
3. In the version filed by the 3rd and 6 to 8 opposite parties, they have stated the same matters as stated in the version of 4th and 6th opposite parties.
4. Considering the contentions of the parties, this Forum has raised the following issues for consideration.
a) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the side of the opposite parties?
b) Whether the complainant is entitled to get the amount from the opposite party?
c) Compensation and costs?
5. Issues 1 to 3:- Complainant has filed proof affidavit in support of his case and produced document in evidence – Ext.A1 marked. Ext.A1 is the original pass book issued by the opposite parties to the complainant at the time of joining in the said chit. Ext.A1 further shows the details of the amount remitted by the complainant ie. 35 installments at the rate of Rs.2500/-. It shows the details of other conditions regarding the remittance
6. Opposite parties 3 and 6 to 8 have filed counter affidavit, and not filed any documents. The said opposite parties were absent on the date fixed for hearing. So the Forum have heard the matter in detail on the side of the complainant.
8. We have fully verified the matter involved in this case and verified the document produced by the complainant in evidence. It is alleged by the complainant that he had remitted a total sum of Rs.87,500/- by 35 installments in the firm of the opposite parties by way of chit amount. Ext.A1 document clearly shows that matter . In spite of the repeated request of the complainant, the opposite parties have not taken any sincere attempt to repay the amount with interest to the complainant in time. Instead of taking necessary earnest steps to repay the amount in time, the opposite parties have evaded from the liability purposefully after raising unnecessary contentions when contended by the complainant and delay the matter. The action of the opposite parties shows their cheating nature and unfair trade practice and they have jointly and severally liable for the said amounts payable to the complainant.
9. The complainant is fully entitled to get back the remitted amount from the opposite parties vide Ext.A1 document. But the opposite parties have not turned up and refused the payment purposefully. The entire action of the opposite parties shows that there is grossest deficiency in service, culpable negligence and unfair trade practice by way of purposeful refusal to pay the amount. The opposite parties are bound to repay the amount with interest and that there is no justification on the side of the opposite parties to deny the repayment by raising unnecessary contentions. The contentions of the opposite parties cannot be accepted as valid grounds to deny repayment and it lacks bonafides. Since there is grossest deficiency in service, culpable negligence, unfair trade practice and cheating on the side of the opposite parties, the opposite parties are fully liable to pay compensation and cost to the complainant. The contentions of the opposite parties regarding this financial dealings have no merit and cannot be accepted. The opposite parties have jointly and severally liable to repay the amount with interest to the complainant. So considering the facts and circumstances of this case and after perusal of the documents in evidence, we are of the strong view that the allegation of the complainant against the opposite parties are to be treated as genuine. In this context, the complaint is to be allowed as prayed for. All the issues are found in favour of the complainant. Hence the complaint is allowed.
In the result we hereby direct the opposite parties to return the remitted amount of Rs.87,500/- (Rupees Eighty seven thousand and five hundred only) to the complainant with 14% interest from the date of remittance to till the repayment of the entire amount and further pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) as compensation to the complainant for his mental agony, pain, sufferings, physical strain, loss and harassment of the opposite parties due to the purposeful denial of the repayment of the remittance amount with interest in time and violation of assurance given to the complainant for repayment of remitted amount and its interest by way of deficiency in service, culpable negligence, unfair trade practice and cheating. We further directing the opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) to the complainants as costs of this proceedings. We hereby further ordered that the complainant is free to proceed against the assets of the opposite parties for the realization of the said amounts in case any default to pay the said amounts to them. We further direct the opposite parties to comply with this order within 30 days from the date of this order.
Complaint is allowed.
Pronounced in open Forum on this the 30th day of June, 2011.
Sd/- Sri. K. Anirudhan
Sd/- Sri. Jimmy Korah
Sd/- Smt. N. Shajitha Beevi
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
Ext. A1 - Original Pass book
Evidence of the opposite parties:- Nil
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite parties/S.F.
Typed by:-pr/-
Compared by:-
