BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION:
HYDERABAD.
against C.D.No. 1163/2004, Dist. Forum-II, Hyderabad .
Manik Lal Yadav, S/o. Nand Lal Yadav,
… Appellant/
Complainant
And
Having its registered office of 123,
Angappa Nayakan Street Chennai and one of
its Branch Office at Charminar, Hyderabad,
Represented by its Managing Director.
Charminar Branch Hyd.
Rpresented by its Branch Manager. …Respondents
opp.parties/
: party in person .
for the respondents : Sri K.Maheswara Rao-R2
CORAM : THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI.D.APPA RAO , PRESIDENT,
AND
SRI SYED ABDULLAH, HON’BLE MEMBER
THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY FEBRUARY,
TWO THOUSAND NINE.
Hon ‘ble Member. )
***
The appellant is the unsuccessful complainant in C.D.No.1163/ 2004 on the file of Dist. Forum-II , Hyderabad . The complaint was filed against opp.parties alleging deficiency in service and sought for refund of Rs.15,000/- with interest thereon @ 2% per month from 7.12.2003 onwards to the complainant less 8 instalments payments of Chit CLJ 10-28 excluding the dividend and to pay damages of Rs.25,000 to the complainant and also to pay costs.
Aggrieved by the impugned order of dismissal, the appellant/complainant in appeal grounds raised the contentions that the District Forum failed to appreciate that Ex.A2 letter was written by him at the behest of the opp.party in compelling circumstances and that there are disputes with the opp.party no.2 with regard to other chits subscribed by him which are the subject matter of O.S.676/2004 and C.D.No.1150/2004 . It is further contended that even Ex.B1 account statement reflects that an advance payment of Rs.9,950/- was made on 28.11.2001 which has been adjusted from 26th instalment upto 37 instalments. The District Forum failed to appreciate that the complainant had paid 42 instalments in a chit CLJ 10-28 and that opp.parties have mis-used the blank signed cheques obtained from the complainant.
The brief facts of the case in C.D.NO. 1163/2004 are that the complainant joined in the chit scheme of opp.party no.2 of chit value of Rs.50,000/- of 50 months vide chit no. CLJ 10-28 and he became prized subscribed of the said chit. The opp.party no.2 did not approve and accept the sureties offered by the complainant for release of the prize amount of the chit and insisted the complainant to agree for investment in non convertible debentures of their sister concern (opp.party no.1) stating that it would be accepted as security and in the said circumstances having no other option for drawing the prize amount he had agreed for it. The complainant had authorized the opp.party no.2 to disburse the prize amount of the chit in 15 NCD’s of Rs.1000/- each of opp.party no.1 . Advance payment and investment in its sister concern has been taken as security by the opposite parytno.2 for releasing the prize amount. Inspite of it the opp.party no.2 delayed payment of prize amount of chit to the complainant. Because of the delay the complainant suffered monetary loss and he did not fulfill other commitments. As per debenture certificate HZC - 5539892 issued in the name of the complainant Rs.15,000/- is to be repaid by 7.12.2003 with interest there on at 12.5% p.a. with monthly rests every month. Since it was agreed to be linked to Chit no.CLJ 10-28 and Xerox copy of the said certificate was handed over to the complainant by retaining the original by opp.parties , so that the complainant had paid an advance chit payment in CLJ 10-28 which was adjusted upto 42nd instalment of March 2003 . The complainant had to make payment of 8 instalments of Rs.1000/- per instalment less dividend amount and the same was not paid by the complainant as he was entitled for refund of the amount. The opp.parties unauthorisedly mis-used the blank cheques to a tune of Rs.28,000/- which amount the complainant is entitled for and his claim letters are pending with Sriram Chits , Hyderabad and without prejudice to his rights the complainant sent a letter on 8.11.2003 authorising the opposite parties to deduct the net subscriptions payable for the 8 instalments of Chit CLZ 10-28 for the amount payable by the complainant covered by NCD on its maturity date of 7.12.2003 by adjustments. Since the NCD matured by 7.12.2003, the opposite party is bound to pay the amount else deducting the dues covered under chit CLJ 10-28 . The opp.parties failed to act upon which they are bound to account for it. Hence the act of opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service.
The opposite party no.1 adopted the counter/version filed by the opposite party no.2 . The opposite party no.2 denied the allegations except to the extent of membership of the complainant in respect of the chit bearing no.CLJ 10-28 of value Rs.50,000/- payable at 50 instalments at Rs.1000/- per month and that the complainant is a prized subscriber . It is further stated that as per the letter dt.8.11.2003 issued by the complainant to foreclose the NCDs and to adjust the realized amount of such foreclosure towards the balance 8 defaulted instalments due and payable. The said NCDs. were matured by 7.12.2003 and after maturity the said maturity amount was recalled from the opposite party no.1 out which an amount of Rs.7,956/- was adjusted towards the remaining 8 instalments duly giving dividend and a paltry penalty of Rs.144/- in total an amount of Rs.8,100/- was adjusted and the remaining balance amount of Rs.6,900/- out of the maturity amount of NCDs was adjusted towards the defaulted instalments of another chit bearing no.CMK-3/17 held by the complainant at his request. Inspite of the said adjustment of the above chit for the balance amount a Civil Suit was already filed before the Hon’ble Vth Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad vide O.S.No.676/2000 which is pending adjudication. The complainant is not entitled for an amount of Rs.15,000/- with interest as claimed by him. Hence prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
During the enquiry the District Forum, had considered Exhibits A1 to A5 and Exs.B1 and B2 filed by both the parties along with their affidavits and came to the conclusion that the complainant had not paid the instalments regularly and he himself gave Ex.A2 letter to the opp.parties to adjust the redemption amount of the debentures towards the arrears of chit instalments and accordingly it was adjusted and thereby the complainant is not entitled for any amount of refund as claimed by him and thereby dismissed the complaint.
The facts are not in dispute that the complainant had become a member of chit CLJ 10-28, as well two other chits for which he had agreed to pay the instalments regularly . In para 3 of the complaint, the complainant himself categorically admitted that he has agreed to deposit the prize amount of chit CLJ 10-28 by obtaining non convertible debentures of opp.party no.1 and it is to be accepted as security for drawing the prize amount. He who takes the stand that there was undue influence or coersion on the part of the opposite parties it is for him to establish it which he failed to substantiate except made an oral assertion. The opposite party no.2 in para 8 of version has explained in detail as to how NCDs maturity amount was adjusted in respect of the instalments of the chits obtained by the complainant and for recovery of the balance of the instalments amount a suit OS.NO. 676/2000 was filed and the same is pending for adjudication by the date of filing of this complaint. Opp.party no.2 filed Exs.B1 and B2 statements showing the regular instalments paid by the complainant . The complainant has not disputed the correctness of the entries therein. Exs.B1 and B2 are relevant and admissible under Section 34 of the Indian Evidence Act and the same are kept in the regular course of business. It is for the complainant as an account holder to point out discrepancy if any as to these entries which the complainant could not point out any mistake. Ex.A3 letter of the complainant would cut the roots of his contentions and it is too much on his part to say that the opposite party no.2 had withheld the prize amount and that he was put to mental agony for not realising the prize amount entitled to him. The District Forum on appreciation of evidence on record has rightly held that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and there is every justification in dismissing the complaint. The impugned order has no factual or legal infirmities for any interference and the appeal is devoid of merits.
In the result appeal is dismissed confirming the order dt. 31.12.2005 passed in C.D.No.1163/2004 by Dist. Forum-II, Hyderabad . In the circumstances of the case each party shall bear their own costs.
PRESIDENT MALE MEMBER
Dt.26.2.2009
