O R D E R

AS PER SRI T.SRIRAMA MURTHY, PRESIDENT

This complaint is filed U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, seeking the reliefs to direct the 1^st OP to pay 27 installments of chit amount and dividend and interest @ 24% p.a., and to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards litigation expenses and Rs1,00,000/- towards damages on the following averments:

The complainant to eak out his livelihood, went to abroad and worked as Store Keeper, Store in-chage in Abudabi, Katar and Yaman and when he came to his native place, he married one Parvathi @ Anusha D/O Krishnam Naidu  on 17-02-2002 and lead happy marital life and was blessed with a son who is the 2^nd OP herein. During the life time of the wife of the complainant, complainant sent money to his wife and as and when he was coming from abroad, he was bringing sufficient amount. When the complainant was in India, the agent of the 1^st OP approached him and asked him to join as member in any of  the Chit Groups upon which, the complainant assured the agent that he will join in  a chit group and few days thereafter, he got his wife joined as a member in the child group and she was allotted a membership bearing ticket no.35 in the group of LT-4/03 on 28-07-2008. The  above chit was commenced on 31-07-2008 and the wife of the complainant had to pay mmonthly installments @ 12,500/-. The complainant was a nominee of his wife and he was sending money to his wife to enable her to pay the installments regularly. On 17-11-2010, the wife of the complainant died and the said fact was informed to the 1^st OP. Due to misunderstandings in between the complainant and his in-laws, a false case was filed against the complainant and basing on such report, the complainant was arrested and was sent to jail. During his absence at home, the second OP who is the minor son of  the complainant was taken away by the brother-in-law of the complainant by name Venkata Rao and after the Complainant was released on bail, he filed a case for custody of his minor son which is under subjudice. In the 3^rd week of June, 2011, the complainant informed the 1^st OP about the death of his wife and asked them to allow him to continue as a member in the chit group in place of his deceased wife but of no avail.

After completion of the statutory period of the chit, the complainant approached the 1^st OP and demanded them to pay the chit amount being a nominee of his wife but to no affect. The complainant was made to run round the office of the 1^st OP to get the chit amount paid on behalf of his wife but the first OP did not respond to his request and avoided to pay the amount on one pretext or the other. It is averred that the wife of the complainant has paid 27 installments to the 1^st OP and after her demise, the rest of the installments were not paid, as the complainant was not allowed to continue to pay the balance installments. Since, there is deficiency of service on the part of the 1^st OP and as the complainant was made to suffer mental agony, he filed the complaint for the above said reliefs.

The OPs 1 and 2 filed counters, traversing the material allegations made in the complaint and have averred that Smt.Yadla Anusha Parvathi joined as  member  in the Chit Group LT 4 /03 VIDE Ticket no.35 and the value of the chit is Rs.5,00,000/- payable in 40 monthly installments @ Rs.12,500/- per month and the said chit group was commenced on 31-07-2008  and the date of termination is 30-10-2011. It is averred that, the wife of the complainant was irregular  in making payment of monthly installments and in all, she has paid 26 installments in full and 27^th installment in part upon which, the 1^st OP got issued a notice dated 03-09-2011, calling upon the subscriber to pay the installments as agreed. But to the surprise, the said notice was returned back stating that the subscriber died. It is averred that on 17-09-2011, the 2^nd OP issued a legal notice to the 1st   OP, calling upon them not to make any payment to the complainant as there exists disputes in between them. Hence, the 1^st OP and the complainant and the 1^st OP did not pay the amount to the complainant. It is averred that the deceased subscriber  has paid a sum of Rs.2,59,495/-  and as she committed default in paying the rest installments, she is not entitled for any dividends. It is averred that the company is entitled to charge 5% on the chit value as per by laws and relevant act and an amount of Rs.25,000/- is to be deducted from the amount payable to heirs of the deceased. It is averred that the 1^st OP is always ready to pay the said amount to the right person. It is averred that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the 1^st OP and as the petition merits no consideration, the same is liable to be dismissed.

In the counter of 2^nd OP, it is averred that he is the son of deceased Parvathi and after demise of the said Parvathi a case in GOP No.391/12 on the file of Principal District Judge Court at Vizianagaram was filed by the complainant for the custody of the 2^nd OP which is under subjudice. It is averred that the Complainant did not send any amount to the deceased while she was alive and during the life time of the deceased, the complainant harassed her and did not look after her well. Since the deceased was neglected by her husband, she was maintained by her parents and that the complainant did not invest any amount for payment of installments of the above said chit. As the complainant was harassing the deceased and was insisting on her to get more money from her parents, she was forced to take shelter in her parents’ house and on 16-11-2010, while the deceased was at Visakhapatnam, she telephoned to her younger brother stating that the complainant was beating her indiscriminately and was demanding her to bring Rs.3 lakhs and was threatening to kill her in case she fails to comply his demand. It is averred that after demise of the wife of the complainant, a report was lodged with II Tow P.S., Visakhapatnam against the Complainant and his brother and sister U/s 498 A and 306 IPC and the same was registered as a case in Crime No.491/2010 and the complainant was arrested in the said case and was sent to judicial custody. After demise of the wife of the complainant, the 2^nd OP was taken away to the house of his maternal uncle. It is averred that the second OP is the Legal heir of the deceased Parvathi as well as the Complainant,  being their son, but the complainant having suppressed the said fact, made a claim to receive the chit amount from the 1^st OP  and as the 2^nd OP is legally entitled to get the said amount, he made a complaint to the 1^st OP to pay the amount to him. It is averred that the 2^nd OP got issued a notice to the 1^st OP stating that he is the right person to get the chit amount and not to entertain any claim application made by complainant in this regard.  It is averred that the complainant having suppressed the material facts filed the complaint with false allegations and as the complainant merits no consideration, the same is liable to be dismissed.

In furtherance of complainants’ case, the affidavit evidence of PW1 was filed and he got marked Exhibits A1 to A4 on his behalf. Per contra, the OPs too filed affidavit evidence of RW1 and RW2 and got marked Exhibits B1 to B13.

Perused the material placed on record and heard the counsel for the respective parties.

Now the point for consideration is, whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of 1^st OP for not making payment of the chit amount to the complainant and whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs prayed for?

Basing on the material available on record, the learned counsel for the complainant has contended that the complainant being the husband of the deceased and a nominee in the chit, made her to join the chit and was sending the necessary amounts for payment of chit installments and that deceased paid 26 installments in full and 27^th installment in part and after her demise, he made a claim to the 1^st  OP to pay the said amount and as the 1^st OP did not make payment of the same, the complainant suffered a lot and as there is deficiency of service on the part of the 1^st OP, he filed the complaint for the reliefs  prayer for.   

As against the above said contention, the learned counsel for the OPs  have contended that the complainant did not send any amount to the deceased for payment of installments amount and during the life time of the deceased, he harassed her and made her to live in her parents’ house and as the 2^nd OP is a legal heir to the deceased, he too is entitled to get the chit amount and as the complainant alone is not entitled to get the chit amount, the 1^st OP has rightly declined to give the said amount to him and as there is no deficiency of service on the part of the 1^st OP, the complaint is liable to be dimissed. As seen from the pleadings and evidence adduced on behalf of the respective parties, it is manifest that the deceased Parvathi was the wife of the complainant and mother of the 2^nd OP. It is an admitted fact that after demise of Parvathi, a criminal case was registered against the complainant on the premise that he subjected her to  cruelty and as the 2^nd OP is in the custody of the his maternal uncle, the complainant filed GOP in 391/2012 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Vizianagaram for the custody of minor and the said case is pending for disposal. Though the complainant has taken a plea that he was sending sufficient amounts while he was in abroad to the complainant for payment of the chit installments no cogent evidence is forthcoming to believe the said case. As per the complainant, he, being the nominee of the deceased in the above chit, is entitled to get the chit amount.

It is settled law that in the absence of any specific provision entitling the nominee to hold the property to the exclusion of legal representative, legal representative was held entitled to the estate of the deceased and not the nominee. Coming to the case on hand, the complainant has taken a plea that he is the nominee of his deceased wife in the chit and is therefore, entitled to get the chit amount. As I have already stated supra, the 2^nd OP is the son of the deceased and is a class I heir. Even, if it is believed that the complainant is the nominee and a legal heir to the deceased, he alone is not entitled to get the chit amount, by depriving the 2^nd OP to get a share in it. It is not the case of the complainant that the deceased has executed a Will enabling him to receive the chit amount by depriving the 2^nd OP to get a share in it. Since, the 2^nd OP is also entitled to get the chit amount as a Legal Heir to the deceased and as there are Civil and Criminal Cases pending in between the Complainant and 2^nd OP with regard to custody of the 2^nd OP as well as the alleged harassment meted out to the deceased during her life time, the 1^st OP has rightly declined to give the chit amount to the complainant. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the 1^st OP for not making payment of the chit amount to the complainant.

In the counter of the 1^st OP, it is specifically averred that the 1^st OP is always ready to pay the amount to the right person and as there is litigation in between the heirs of the deceased subscriber, the payment was not made. Since, the 2^nd OP made a claim to the 1^st OP to pay the chit amount being the son of the deceased, the 1^st OP has rightly withheld the payment of amount to them. The dispute in between the complainant and 2^nd OP is to be adjudicated by a Competent Court of Law with regard to their right to get the estate of the deceased.  As there is no deficiency of service on the part of the OPs, the complaint merits no consideration and is liable to be dismissed.

In the result, the complaint is dismissed without costs.

Dictated to the Steno, transcribed by him, corrected by me and pronounced by us in the open Forum, this the 10 day of December, 2014.

MEMBER                                  PRESIDENT