Before the District CONSUMERS Forum: Kurnool
Present:Sri.K.V.H.Prasad, B.A., LL.B., President
And
Smt.C.Preethi, M.A., LL.B., Member
Sri.R.Ramachandra Reddy, B.Com., LL.B., Member
Wednesday 25TH day of February, 2004
C.D.No.130/2003
C.M.Sada Siva Reddy or C.M.S.Reddy,
S/o C.M.Narayana Reddy,
R/o H.No.10-51,
Krishna Nagar,
Kurnool. . . . Complainant represented by his Counsel
Sri.U.Satyapal Reddy, Advocate
-Vs-
S.Yogeswara Goud,
Foreman and Managing Partner,
Suthradari Financiers,
Door No.40/331-1,
Gandhi Nagar,
Kurnool. . . . Opposite party represented by his counsel
Sri.E.Sreenivasulu, Advocate
O R DE R
1. This Consumer Dispute case of the complainant is filed under Section 11 and 12 of the C.P. Act seeking an award against the opposite party for refund of the amount of Rs.15,000/- paid to the opposite party under a chit along with interest at 24% per annum and Rs.2,000/- towards costs.
2. The brief facts of the complainant’s case are that on 20-09-1999 the complainant joined “Suthradari” Finance Scheme of 60 months duration organized by the opposite party as its Formen and paid to the opposite party 15 monthly installments at Rs.1,000/- per month and the opposite party has acknowledged the said payment by issuing receipts and a Pass Book making the entires for the amount paid by the complainant and allotting Membership no.37. As per the terms of the said scheme after the during of the 15 months and payment of its installments tuning to Rs.15,000/- to the Member is entitle to get the amount of Rs.30,000/- without furnishing any guarantee. When the opposite party failed to run the scheme regularly thereafter the complainant required the opposite party for refund of the amount of Rs.15,000/- paid by him to the opposite party towards 15 monthly installments under the said scheme. But the opposite party paid a deaf year to the said request and by said defaultive conduct caused deficiency of service and constrained the complainant to the Forum for the reliefs.
3. In pursuance of the receipt of the notice of this Forum as to this case of the complainant the opposite party caused its appearance through his counsel and contested the case by filing written version in denial of the complaint averments and cause of action requiring its strict proof by the complainant and dis-owing any of his concern with the said “Suthrdari Finances” and questioning the status of the complainant as Consumer and the case of the complainant as barred by the limitation and seeking the dismissal of the complaint with costs.
4. While the complainant’s side relied upon the documentary record in the Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 besides to his sworn affidavit in reiteration of the complaint averments, the opposite party’s side merely filed its sworn affidavit in reiteration of its defence taken in its written version.
5. Hence, the point for consideration is whether the complainant has made out his case for having a relief sought?
6. The Ex.A1 is the bunch of the 15 receipts envisaging the re-under receipt of Rs.1,000/- each during 20-09-1999 to 10-11-2000 towards monthly installments of the Membership No.37 of the “Suthradari Financiers”. The Ex.A2 is the Membership card of the complainant issued by “Suthradari Financiers” finance savings scheme showing its office at 40-311/1, Gandhi Nagar, Kurnool. The bunch of the receipts in Ex.A1 is not envisaging the stat us of the signitary and the name of the signitary who issued them to the complainant in token of the receipts of the amount mentioned therein. Nor the said signatures of them are similar to the admitted signatures of the opposite party in Vakalath, written version, sworn affidavit etc. The opposite party has filed a Xerox copy of the Registered Partnership Deed of the M/S Suthradari Financiers for saying of his no concern with the said Finance Company. On perusal of it what appears is that none of the signatures in the Ex.A1 receipts are having any similarity even to the signatures of the partners of M/s Suthradari Financiers even. It further envisages one V.Purna Chandra Babu as its Managing Partner and no where shows any concern of the opposite party S.Yogeswara Goud to the said Finance Firm nonetheless either its Managing Partner as Foremen as described by the complainant in the cause title of the case. Even though the Ex.A2 pertains to the collection made M/s Suthradari Financiers are for the Membership No.37 of the complainant, for want of any cogent linking material that it was collected by S.Yogeswara Goud either as its Managing Partner or Foremen of the said Firm. There appears no sufficient material to draw any inference and the liability of the opposite party S.Yogeswara Goud for the collection made and for any alleged non-continuance of the said scheme and the non refund of the amount collected from the complainant under the said Membership No.37. Hence, the case of the complainant remains bad for the mis-joinder of the opposite party and non-joinder of the liable partners of the M/s Suthradari Financiers.
7. The 15 receipt of Ex.A1 at the last entry of the Ex.A1 i.e., 25th entry showing the last payment on 10-11-2000. This case filed in the Forum on 3rd day of September, 2003. From the said last receipt dated the date of filing this case was about 2 years 9 months 23 days after to the said date by which he having deposited Rs.15,000/- which now he is seeking refund. There being no order of the Forum condoning the said delay of the period over and the above two years statuarily prescribed by the Act, in the absence of any such endeavour on the part of the complainant in seeking the condonation of the delay, the case of the complainant is remaining barred by the statutory limitation of 2 years prescribed under Section 24 A of the C.P. Act.
8. The complainant except alleging the opposite party dis-continued the scheme abruptly after receiving the 15 installments and deprived him to the said scheme did not place any cogent material of the other members of the said scheme in the supported corroboration of the said scheme, in-spite of its denial by the opposite party requiring its strict proof by the complainant. Hence for want of the cogent proof of the said allegation there appears any doubt on the bonafidies of the said allegation of the complainant.
9. Hence, in the sum up of the above discussion, as the complainant neither established the concerned and the liability of the opposite party to the said scheme and for the claim made and the case of the complainant is being bad for the mis-joinder of the opposite party and the non-joinder of the concerned partners of the said firm and also being barred by the limitation the case of the complainant is dismissed with costs.
Dictated to the Stenographer, Typed to the Dictation corrected by us pronounced in the Open Court this the 25th day of February, 2004.
MEMBER PRESIDENT MEMBER
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant:- Nil For the opposite party:- Nil
List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-
Ex.A1 Bunch of 15 receipts issued by opposite party in favour of the complainant.
Ex.A2 Pass Book with up to date entires made by the opposite party under Membership No.37 of the complainant.
List of exhibits marked for the opposite party:- Nil
MEMBER PRESIDENT MEMBER
