Dated:09.09.2024

O R D E R

BY Mr. K. B. SANGANNANAVAR: Pri. Dist. & Session Judge (R)- JUDICIAL MEMBER:

1. This is an appeal filed by OP in CC/66/2014 on the file of DCDRF, Koppal, aggrieved by the order dated 21.02.2015.  (The parties to this appeal will be referred as to their rank assigned to them by the District Forum)

2. The Commission examined grounds of appeal, impugned order, appeal papers and heard learned counsels.

3. Now the point that arise for consideration of the Commission would be:

Whether impugned order dated 21.02.2015 passed in CC/66/2014 does call for an interference of the Commission for the grounds set out in the appeal memo?

4. Complainant is a subscriber of Chit Fund, won the price in the auction held on 14^th installment on 12.08.2013.  The Chit amount was Rs.50,000/- payable in 40 installments.  The discount amount was Rs.9,300/-. He intends to deposit the price amount in Fixed Deposit with OP Bank for security for future installments.  However, OP bank deposited the price amount of Rs.40,000/- in Fixed Deposit on 18.11.2013.  It is therefore, he had raised a Consumer Complaint alleging against OP, had caused delay of more than 03 months which amounts to rendering deficiency of services and he sought for compensation of Rs.25,000/- for the delay in payment of chit amount, Rs.25,000/- towards compensation for physical and mental agony, Rs.25,000/- towards rendering deficiency in service and Rs.5,000/- towards litigation and other expenses.  Thus, complainant in all had sought for an award to be passed against OP for Rs.80,000/-. 

5. Contrary to the above case, OP had contested the complaint denied  the allegations of rendering deficiency in service on their part explaining various grounds and contended that the relationship between the complainant and OP, is not that of the Consumer and service provider and the complaint raised is not maintainable.

6. In view of rival contentions of the respective parties to the above complaint, District Forum held an enquiry by receiving affidavit evidence and documents, proceed to allow the complaint in part and directed OP to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation and Rs.3,000/- towards litigation expenses on or before 30.06.2015 along with interest @ 10% p.a. from the date of complaint till actual payment.  It is this order is assailed in this appeal contending that District Forum had failed to perceive the materials placed on record passed the impugned order contrary to facts and law, is unsustainable.

7. It is found from enquiry that the Complainant is an advocate and his grievance would be; there is a delay of more than 03 months in paying the price amount of Rs.40,000/-.  It is not in dispute that chit amount was Rs.50,000/- payable in 40 installments and he won the price in the auction held on 12.08.2013 for which Rs.9,300/- was the discount and the OP has to pay Rs.40,000/-.  According to complainant he intended to deposit the price amount as Fixed Deposit with OP towards security for future installments.  However, it was deposited on 18.11.2013 as per Ex.A2.  Learned counsel for appellant/OP relied on a decision of the Hon'ble NCDRC in the case between V.Vijayalakshmi and other v. Vijaya Bhargavi Chits Fund Co. Ltd., reported in I (2006) CPJ 153 (NC) decided on 21.04.2005 in RP/1404/2001 wherein held in para-03 – “…..According to the Sub-clause 15, it is also clear that his amount would be paid either at the end or the close of the series or when a substituted subscriber draws the prize amount whichever occur first.”, has to be held not applicable to the facts of the case for the reasons assigned in para-13 of the impugned order, but facts remain found from enquiry, the complainant had raised complaint after receiving the deposit amount and if was still aggrieved with   that there was delay in depositing the price amount in Fixed Deposit  around November 2013,  could have raised  complaint  in 2013, instead  waiting for the chit to be end and collect the chit amount and then file the complaint in November 2014 i.e., nearly after 01 year, had some considerable force.  The very fact that he availed an order after receiving the deposit amount, suffice to hold complainant is not entitle for compensation awarded at Rs.20,000/- along with litigation cost of Rs.3,000/-. 

8. In view of the above facts as found from the enquiry file, anyhow, we found delay on the part of OP for about 03 plus months in payment of price amount of Rs.40,000/-, for which the complainant has to be held entitle for some amount of compensation which in our view is quantified at Rs.900/- considering the rate of interest @ 09% p.a., Since this aspect of the matter was not considered by the District Forum while passing the impugned order as such it does call for any interference of the Commission.  Further, considering the grievances Rs.1,000/- towards compensation for the delay  and  Rs.2,000/- towards cost of litigation if awarded would meet the ends of justice. In such conclusion, Commission proceed to allow the appeal.  Consequently, set aside the order dated 21.02.2015 passed in CC/66/2014 on the file of DCDRF, Koppal and as a result ordered to modify the impugned order in the following terms:

OP Nos.1 and 2 are directed to pay Rs.900/- plus Rs.1,000/- and Rs.2,000/- respectively tothe complainant within 60 days failing which the amount shall carry interest @ 09% p.a. from the date of such delay till realization.

9. The Amount in deposit is directed to be transferred to District Commission for needful.

10. Send a copy of this Order to the District Commission and parties to the appeal for information.

        Lady Member                                  Judicial Member             

*GGH*