Telangana

Mahbubnagar

CC/10/103

K.Rajesh S/o Daravu, aged 25 years, O/c Private employee - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sri Laxmi Motors, Chits & Auto Finance, rep. by its Partners P.Raju Goud and Others - Opp.Party(s)

Sri M.Chennaiah Goud

29 Apr 2011

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM AT MAHABUBNAGAR

Friday, the 29^th day of April, 2011 

                                                               Present:- Sri P. Sridhara Rao, B.Sc., LL.B., President

                                                                     Sri A. Veerupakshi, B.A., LL.B., Member        

      Smt.D.Nirmala, B.Com., LL.B.,Member

C.C.NO. 103  Of   2010

Between:-

K. Rajesh S/o Daravu, aged 25 years, Occ: Private Employee, R/o Nagaradobba thanda, H/o Veeraboyinpally village, Dindi Mandal, Nalgonda District.

                                                 … Complainant

And

Sri Laxmi Motors, Chits & Auto Finance, represented by its Partners:

1. P. Raju Goud S/o not known, aged about 35 years, R/o 6-118,Gandhinagar, Kalwakurthy.

2. Brungi Praveen Kumar S/o Krishnaiah, aged about 35 years,  R/o H.No.17/32, Hanmannagar, Kalwakurthy.

3. Narsi Reddy S/o not known, R/o H.No.6-129, Gandhinagar,  Opp: Police Station, Kalwakurthy.

4. P. Saritha W/o P. Raju Goud, age major, R/o 6-118, Gandhinagar, Kalwakurthy, Mahabubnagar District.

                                                                                                                                            … Opposite Parties

 

 This C.C. coming on before us for final hearing on 25-4-2011 in the presence of Sri M. Chennaiah Goud, Advocate, Mahabubnagar on behalf of the complainant and Sri P. Amba Shankar, Advocate, Mahabubnagar for OP-2 and OPs.1, 3 & 4 having been set exparte and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Forum made the following:   

                                                                                                    O R D E R

 (Sri A. Veerupakshi, Member)

1.  This is a complaint filed by the complainant under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking a direction to the opposite parties to refund the already paid installments amount of Rs.34,000/- with interest @ 36% p.a. from the date of last payment i.e., 6-4-2009, to pay Rs.20,000/- towards unfair trade practice and deficiency of service, Rs.30,000/- towards mental agony and also to pay Rs.10,000/- towards costs of the complaint.

2. The averments of the complaint in brief are that:- The opposite party Nos.1 to 4 being the partners started a lucky scheme under the name and style of Sri Laxmi Motors Chits and Auto Finance at Kalwakurthy for providing loans for two wheeler vehicles.  As per the terms and conditions the scheme period is for 40 months and every member has to pay Rs.1,000/- per month.  Being attracted by the canvass made by the opposite parties the complainant joined as a member in the scheme in the month of August, 2006 by paying membership fee of Rs.100/- and the opposite parties have allotted membership No.199.  The complainant after joining as a member regularly paid the amount for 34 monthly installments  @ Rs.1,000/- per month till 6-4-2009. When the complainant approached the opposite parties for paying further installments he was informed that they will receive the amount in the next month on the ground that one of their partners by name Sadananda Goud was died.  When the complainant again approached the opposite parties in the next month, the opposite parties postponed to receive the amount on some pretext or other and ultimately they not only refused to receive the installments amount but also failed to refund the amount already paid by him even after issuance of legal notice.  Such acts on the part of the opposite parties amounts to unfair trade practice.  Thus the present complaint is filed for the aforesaid relief.

3. While the opposite party Nos.1, 3 and 4 remained exparte, the opposite party No.2 filed counter denying the averments of the complaint and stated that there is no privity of contract between him and the complainant for consideration, as such the question of deficiency on his part does not arise, in fact the complainant has joined as a member through one A. Narsi Reddy (OP-3) who is a partner of the firm and he is responsible for the payment.  It is further stated that the complainant is a defaulter in payment of installments, that in fact that after the sudden death of one of the partners by name Sadanand Goud, and in that connection the records of the firm were seized by the police, that due to some problems arose among the partners of the firm the scheme was temporarily stopped and some time later the firm again started business after 25-7-2009 onwards and the members of the scheme again started paying the installments regularly but however the complainant had not come forward for payment of the balance installments amount.  It is further stated that as per condition No.7 of the scheme if any member fails to pay the monthly installments for 3 months continuously and as per condition No.8 such discontinued member is entitled for the amount paid by him after deducting the scheme loss of Rs.6,000/- only, and that the complainant representing the real facts filed the present complaint with false allegations.  Thus the complaint is liable to be dismissed against this opposite party with costs.      

4. Thereupon the complainant in support of his claim filed his affidavit evidence and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-35. On the other hand, the contesting OP-2 filed his affidavit evidence and got marked Ex.B-1 on his behalf.    

5.  The points for determination now are: 

1. Whether there is any deficiency on the part of the opposite parties in 

          rendering service to the complainant as alleged?

     (ii)  Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief sought for by him? 

     (iii)  To what effect? 

6. Point Nos.1 and 2:- It is the case of the complainant that he joined as a member in the scheme in question run by the opposite parties and regularly paid the amount for 34 monthly installments. The said part of the case of the complainant is not challenged by the OPs.1, 3 and 4 who in fact remained exparte.  Even as per the counter and the affidavit evidence of  OP-2 the only contention of OP-2 is that the complainant joined as a member in the scheme run by them through OP-3 and became defaulter in the middle of the scheme and therefore he is not liable to the relief sought for by the complainant.  Even as per the undisputed document Ex.A-35 copy of the Register of Firms OPs.1 to 4 are the partners of the firm as alleged by the complainant.  So in view of the said circumstances it is a fact borne out from the record that OPs.1 to 4 being the partners of the firm run the scheme in question and the complainant after joining as a member in the scheme regularly paid the amount for 35 monthly installments. The said part of evidence of the complainant is fully supported by Exs.A-1 to A-30 and more particularly Ex.A-31 receipts. It is not the contention of the OP-2 that he is not the partner of the firm in question therefore he is not liable to the relief sought for by the complainant along with OPs.1, 3 and 4 who in fact remained exparte. Therefore, it is clearly established by the complainant that OPs.1 to 4 are the partners of the firm and after his joining as a member he regularly paid the amount for 34 installments and ultimately committed default. In that regard, the reason offered by the complainant is that subsequently when he went to make payment of the installments amount the opposite parties not only refused to receive the amount from him but also postponed the matter on some flimsy grounds and even after issuing the legal notice as under the original of Ex.A-33 also the opposite parties did not respond him except giving reply as under Ex.A-34 by OP-2 with false and untenable allegations.  It is also noticed from the record that even to the legal notice got issued by the complainant also demanding to receive the installments amount or refund the amount paid by him, the opposite parties admittedly not even given any reply in support of the contention raised by the OP-2 to the effect that after the death of one of the partners by name Sadanand Goud and when there were some disputes arose among the partners the police seized the records of the firm and thereby stopped the scheme temporarily and again commenced their business from 25-7-2009 onwards.  So, the non issuance of any reply notice to the notice got issued by the complainant also a further admission on the part of the opposite parties in not complying the demand made by the complainant.  As stated above, the OPs.1, 3 and 4 did not challenge the case of the complainant and in fact remained exparte.  The contesting OP-2 except taking some vague pleas as mentioned above did not produce any proof in that regard.  Hence we find that the said act on the part of the opposite parties in not accepting the installments amount from the complainant or atleast to refund the amount paid by him amounts to unfair trade practice. Therefore, for the reasons stated above, we hold that the complainant has clearly established the ground of unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties in rendering service to him as alleged in the complaint.       

7. As per the Exs.A-1 to A-31 it is a fact borne out from the record that the complainant admittedly altogether paid a sum of Rs.34,000/- for 34 monthly installments.  Ex.A-32 is the brochure said to have been issued by the partners of the firm and Ex.B-1 is the copy of the terms and conditions of the scheme covered under Ex.A-32.  A perusal of the recitals of Ex.B-1 clearly goes to show that as per condition No.7 if any member of the scheme commits default continuously for 3 months it will be deemed that he discontinued his membership from the scheme.  As per condition No.8 such defaulter is entitled for refund of the amount paid by him with less amount of Rs.6,000/- towards scheme loss after completion of the scheme period.  But in our view such conditions are applicable only when the opposite parties run the scheme properly and promptly for 40 months.  The very case of the complainant is that the opposite parties refused to receive the installments amount after 34^th installment onwards.  The said part of the case of the complainant is not challenged by the OPs.1, 3 and 4 who in fact remained exparte. The only contention of the contesting OP-2 is that they stopped running the scheme temporarily when there were some disputes arose among the partners and the record of the firm was seized by the police and subsequently they again continued the scheme after 25-7-1995 onwards.  Except taking such a plea he did not produce any proof in that regard challenging the contention of the complainant. Under the said circumstances it can clearly be said that there is some truth in the case of the complainant that the opposite parties themselves discontinued the scheme.  So when the fault is on the part of the opposite parties in running the scheme, the opposite parties cannot take shelter of condition Nos.7 and 8 mentioned in Ex.B-1 and the said conditions will not bind the complainant compelling him to forego a sum of Rs.6,000/- towards scheme loss from the amount paid by him.  Under the said circumstances and for the reasons stated above the opposite parties being the partners of the firm who admittedly run the scheme in question cannot take a plea taking shelter under condition Nos.7 and 8 mentioned in Ex.B-1. Therefore, the complainant is entitled for refund of the entire amount of Rs.34,000/- paid by him and the OPs.1 to 4 are jointly and severally liable to refund the same to him along with some reasonable interest, compensation and costs.  Both the points are answered accordingly in favour of the complainant and against the opposite parties.  

8. Point No.3:- In the result, the complaint is allowed in part directing the opposite party Nos.1 to 4 jointly and severally to refund to the complainant a sum of Rs.34,000/- paid by him along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of last payment i.e., 6-4-2009 till the date of filing of the present complaint i.e., 24-6-2010 besides a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards compensation and Rs.500/- towards costs of the complaint within one month from the date of the present order.   

        Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 29^th day of April, 2011.    

 

    I agree                                                                                        I agree                                                    

 

 MEMBER                                MEMBER                           PRESIDENT                      

  Appendix of evidence

      List of Witness examined

 

On behalf of Complainant:                          On behalf of Opposite Parties:   

- Nil -                                                                   - Nil -

                                    

List of documents marked:-

On behalf of Complainant:-    

                        Ex.A-1: Original Receipt, dt.14.06.2006.

Ex.A-2: Original Receipt, dt.12.08.2006.

Ex.A-3: Original Receipt, dt.14.09.2006.  

Ex.A-4: Original Receipt, dt.14.10.2006.

Ex.A-5: Original Receipt, dt.14.01.2007.

Ex.A-6: Original Receipt, dt.14.02.2007.

Ex.A-7: Original Receipt, dt.14.03.2007.

Ex.A-8: Original Receipt, dt.14.04.2007.

Ex.A-9: Original Receipt, dt.14.05.2007.

Ex.A-10: Original Receipt, dt.14.06.2007.

Ex.A-11: Original Receipt, dt.10.07.2007.

Ex.A-12: Original Receipt, dt.10.08.2007.

Ex.A-13: Original Receipt, dt.10.09.2006.

Ex.A-14: Original Receipt, dt.12.10.2007.

Ex.A-15: Original Receipt, dt.12.11.2007.

Ex.A-16: Original Receipt, dt.11.12.2007.

Ex.A-17: Original Receipt, dt.10.01.2008.

Ex.A-18: Original Receipt, dt.13.02.2008.

Ex.A-19: Original Receipt, dt.11.03.2008.

Ex.A-20: Original Receipt, dt.13.04.2008.

Ex.A-21: Original Receipt, dt.14.06.2008.

Ex.A-22: Original Receipt, dt.14.07.2008.

Ex.A-23: Original Receipt, dt.14.11.2008.

Ex.A-24: Original Receipt, dt.14.11.2008.

Ex.A-25: Original Receipt, dt.14.11.2008.

Ex.A-26: Original Receipt, dt.14.11.2008.

Ex.A-27: Original Receipt, dt.11.02.2009.

Ex.A-28: Original Receipt, dt.11.02.2009.

Ex.A-29: Original Receipt, dt.11.02.2009.

Ex.A-30: Original Receipt, dt.06.04.2009.

Ex.A-31: Original Receipt, dt.06.04.2009.

Ex.A-32: Photostat copy of Brochure.

Ex.A-33: Office copy of Legal Notice, dt.11.5.2010.

Ex.A-34: Copy of Reply Notice, dt.25.5.2010.

Ex.A-35: Photostat copy of Register of Firms.  

On behalf of OP-2.:                  

                        Ex.B-1: Original Terms and Conditions of the Scheme.                                                                                    

                                                                                                 

 

                                                                                 PRESIDENT                                                                                                                                                                                    

Copy to:-

1. Sri M. Chennaiah Goud, Advocate, Mahabubnagar on behalf of the complainant.

2. Sri P. Amba Shankar, Advocate, Mahabubnagar for OP-2.

3. P. Raju Goud S/o not known, aged about 35 years, R/o 6-118,  Gandhinagar, Kalwakurthy.

4. Narsi Reddy S/o not known, R/o H.No.6-129, Gandhinagar,  Opp: Police Station, Kalwakurthy.

5. P. Saritha W/o P. Raju Goud, age major, R/o 6-118, Gandhinagar, Kalwakurthy, Mahabubnagar District.