By Smt. Padmini Sudheesh, President<br /> <br /> Petitioner was subscriber of a quarterly Kuri in the first respondent firm. The petitioner was working in Mumbai, but at the time of commencement of the Kuri, he was in the station on leave. Only on the compulsion of respondents he had joined the Kuri. The respondents also told that the Kuri amount through cheque can also be remitted. The first instalment was paid by cash because the petitioner was in station. For the second and third instalments the amount was paid by way of cheques. Towards the fourth instalment he was issued cheque, but it was returned on 12/2/96 by registered. Subsequently when the petitioner arrived in the native place he demanded the paid amount. But it was refused by the respondents stating that the duration is not completed. The duration was ended on 14/5/05, but the amount not yet received. The petitioner was ready to remit the entire amount, but the acts of the respondents forced him to abstain from the payment. Hence this complaint.<br /> <br /> 2. Respondents 1 and 2 filed Counter to the effect that : Towards the 3rd instalment the petitioner had sent a cheque of Rs.1,898.95 dated 12/2/96. But the Kuri date was 14/2/94. The respondents were under the impression that, if the cheque is not collected in time for adjusting the payment, the bonus benefit would not be available to the petitioner. This matter is informed to the petitioner’s family members and they remitted the amount, hence the cheque has returned by Registered Post. After that the petitioner did not paid the Kuri. So the foreman commission is due from the petitioner. So the paid amount is adjusted towards the foreman commission. Hence dismiss.<br /> <br /> 3 The points for consideration are:<br /> 1)Whether the petitioner is entitled for the amount sought ?<br /> 2)Reliefs and costs ?<br /> <br /> 4. The evidence consists of exhibits P1 to P6 and exhibits R1 to R2. There is no other evidence.<br /> <br /> 5. Point No.1 : The cheque returned only because that particular instalment was remitted b y the family members of the petitioner. If the cheque was not collected in time, the amount would not be adjusted towards the Kuri. In order to save the bonus the respondents informed the family members and they remitted the amount. So the cheque is returned. There is no deficiency on the part of the respondents. According to the petitioner the foreman commission is due from the petitioner. As per the terms and conditions the foreman Company is entitled for the commission. Here the paid amount is adjusted towards the foreman. So the petitioner is not entitled to get back the amount.<br /> <br /> 6. In the result the petition is dismissed. No order as to cost and compensation.<br /> <br /> Dictated to the Confdl. Asst., transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open forum this the 8th day of July 2008.<br /> <br />