D.o.F:09/2/2010
D.o.O:31/12/2010
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD
CC.35/10
Dated this, the 31st day of December 2010.
PRESENT
SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT
SMT.P.RAMADEVI : MEMBER
Bhaskaran,
S/o Kuttiyan(late), : complainant.
Devi Nivas,Bare ,Po.Mylatty,
Via Udma,Kasaragod
(Adv. A.Vidyadharan Nambiar)
1 President,Pudukkai Vainingattu Sree Vairajathan
Eashwaran Kshethra committee, Puthukai :
Vaininghat, Po.Uppilikkai,Hosdurg
2 C.V.Krishnan, S/o Koman Treasurer, : Opposite parties
Pudukkai Vainingattu Sree Vairajathan
Eashwaran Kshethra committee, :
Vaininghat, Po.Uppilikkai,Hosdurg
3. . V. Balachandran, S/o Krishnan,Secretary,
Pudukkai Vainingattu Sree Vairajathan
Eashwaran Kshethra committee, :
Vaininghat, Po.Uppilikkai,Hosdurg
(Ops 1 to 3 Exparte)
4. V.Subramanyan, Typist, PWD Electrical Sub Division,
(Adv.Anantharaman,Kasaragod)
ORDER
SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT:
Complaint is admitted on the file after condoning delay as per order in IA.97/10.
The case of the complaint in brief is that he joined in the chitty conducted by opposite
parties 1 to 4 believing that they have valid license to run chitty . But they appropriated the installments paid in the chitty. The total chitty amount on maturity to be received was ` 5,00,000/-. He joined in the chitty on 27/10/ 2004 and paid 28 monthly installments of ` 10,000/- each totaling `` 2,80,000/- in the chitty. Before completing the chitty Opposite parties absconded closing the chitty offices and appropriating chitty amounts by hundreds of chittalans including that of the complainant. Hence the complainant praying for an order of refund of ` 2,80,000/- with interest and ` 20,000/- as compensation and cost .
2. Notices were issued to all opposite parties by registered post with acknowledgment
due. But notice to opposite parties NO.1 and 3 were returned unserved. Even though
opposite party No.2 was served with the notice but not turned up to defend the case.
Hence notice to opposite parties 1 & 3 were made through paper publication. Even after
publication of notice they did not appear to defend the case. Hence opposite parties 1 to
3 were set exparte.
3. Version of 4th opposite party.
According to Opposite party No.4 he is not an accountant 1st opposite party
or other opposite parties. He has no connection with the complainant and he did not request the complainant to join the chitty. He is also not aware about the payment of ` 2,80,000/- allegedly made by the complainant There is no privity of contract between the complainant and he is a total stranger to 4th opposite party. Opposite party No.4 was working as a daily wage employee under opposite parties 1 to 3 and he had no control over the assets and liabilities of the chitty(Kury) run by opposite parties 2& 3 . Opposite parties 1 to 3 utilised the benefits of the chitty run by them and 4th opposite party did not get any benefits from them except of daily wages for the work done by him in their office for short period. Apart from him some other employees were also working in the office run by opposite parties 1 to 3. He has not requested the complainant to join in the chitty. So he is not liable to compensate the complainant. The complaint is barred by limitation . The amount claimed by the complainant is highly excessive. The entries made in the passbook are not correct. The 4th opposite party heard that several persons have misused the passbooks and other documents of the opposite parties 1 to 3 by trespassing into the office building of Ist opposite party while 2nd opposite party was in judicial custody for some time and misappropriated the documents and assets. The complaint is without any merit. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
4. . Complainant examined as PW1 and the passbook issued bearing the seal of
opposite parties committee is produced and marked as Ext.A1. 4th opposite party filed
counter affidavit. Both sides heard and the documents produced.
5 . Now the points arises for consideration are
1.Whether the complaint is barred by limitation
2. 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?
6. The contention of 4th opposite party that the complaint is barred by limitation is not sustainable in view of Sec.24(A) of the Consumer Protection Act. The complainant filed an application to condone the delay with an affidavit and as per Sec.24(A) (2) of C.P.Act if the complainant satisfied the District Forum State Commission or National Commission that he had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within such period then delay can be condoned complainant in his affidavit has stated that he was waiting and expecting that the opposite parties would pay back the amount but they did not pay the amount . Subsequently he became bedridden also. We are satisfied with the explanation offered by the complainant for not filing the complaint in time . Further the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a catena of decision has held that when substantial justice and technical consideration are pitted against each other cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the reason that other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of non-deliberate delay (AIR 1987 SC 1353).
The law of limitation is enshrined in the maxim interest reipublicae sit finis litium ( it is for the general welfare that a period be put to litigation). Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the right of the parties, rather the idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a legislatively fixed period of time.
7. In N Balakrishnan vs. M.Krishnamurthy (1998) 7 SCC 133 the Apex court explained the scope of limitation and condonation of delay observing as under:
The primary function of a court is to adjudicate the dispute between the parties and to advance substantial justice. The time limit fixed for approaching the court in different situations is not because on the expiry of such a time a bad cause would transform in to a good cause. Rules of limitations are not meant to destroy the rights of parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics but seek then remedy for the redress of the legal injury suffered. The law of limitation is thus founded on public policy.”
8. In Smt. Prabha Vs. Ramprakash Kelra (1987)( Suppl) SCC 338 the Hon’ble Supreme Court took the view that the court should not adopt an injustice oriented approach in rejecting the application for condonation of delay.
In view of the above decisions we condoned the delay in filing the complaint . Moreover if the delay is condoned the maximum that will happen is that the complaint will be decided on merits and it will no way affect the interest of the other side if he has a good defense.
9. The case of the complainant is that he had deposited 28 installments of ` 10,000/- each in the chitty conducted by opposite parties 1 to 4. Ext.A1 is the passbook issued by
opposite party NO.1 committee evidencing the payments of chitty installments. The passbook shows that the complainant deposited ` 2,80,000/- in the chitty.
10. In the version 4th opposite party says that he was working as a daily wage
employee for a short period with Ist opposite party. Apart from him other employees were
also working in the said office Except working for some period as daily wage employee he has no other connection with 1st opposite party and opposite party No.4 or with the chit fund run by them with the complainant. Hence he is an unnecessary party to the above case.
11. The Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in the case of
Ashish Ramesh Chandra Birla & ors. Vs. Muralidharar Rajdhar Patil & ors reported in 2009
CTJ 20 (CP) (NCDRC) has held that in certain case the directors of corporate body can be
personally liable for the deficiency in service of the corporate body. In that case the society
involved was one registered under Co-operative societies Act. There the Hon’ble
Commission has observed
We are also aware that a large number of Cooperative Societies have been superseded
because of the mismanagement and misappropriation of funds by the Chairman and the
Directors of the Society. They even run the society as if it is their personal fiefdom. We
would like to remove the Corporate/Co-operative veil and hold that Directors are
responsible for the deficiency in service by the society.
12. Applying the principle enunciated in the above order we have no hesitation to hold that 4th opposite party is also personally liable to compensate the complainant. During enquiry complainant submitted that he is not seeking any relief against 4th opposite party. Hence 4th opposite party is exonerated from liability
In the result, complaint is allowed and opposite parties Nos 1,to 3 are jointly and
severally directed to refund `2,80, 000/- with interest @9% per annum from the date of
complaint till payment with a cost of ` 3000/-. Time for compliance is limited to 30 days
from the date of receipt of copy of the order.
Ext.A1- chitty pass book
Sd/ Sd/
MEMBER PRESIDENT
eva/ /Forwarded by Order/
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT