IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATHANAMTHITTA. Dated this the 3rd day of January, 2011. Present:- Sri. Jacob Stephen (President) Smt. C. Lathika Bhai (Member) Sri. N. Premkumar (Member) C.C.No.170/09 (Filed on 21.12.2009) Between: V.G. Raju, Vettu Niravel, Athumbumkulam, Konni Thazham Village, Kozhencherry Taluk. (By Adv.P.M.A. Karim) ..... Complainant And: T.V. George, Proprietor-Cum-Foreman, (TVG Chitty Fund, Konni), Thundil House, Payyanamon.P.O., Iravon Village, Kozhencherry Taluk. (By Adv. Sabu Thomas) ..... Opposite party. O R D E R Sri. Jacob Stephen (President): The complainant has filed this complaint for getting a relief from the Forum. 2. The complainant’s case is that the opposite party is the Proprietor-cum-foreman of TVG Chitty Fund, Konni and the complainant is a subscriber of two chitties of the opposite party vide Chittal No. 8 and 20. Each chitty is having total sala of ` 1 lakh with 40 instalments of ` 2,500 each for one instalment. The said chitties started on 6.10.06. The complainant had paid 32 instalments in all and 32nd instalment was paid in the month of 2009. Thereafter the complainant did not paid the further instalments as he got reliable information that the opposite party is going to wind up the chitty business due to some financial crisis. His information was correct and the opposite party had closed the chitty business after 2 months from May, 2009. Thereafter the complainant demanded the chitty instalments paid by him. But the opposite party evaded the payment by one or other pretext. Due to the above said act of the opposite party, the complainant had sustained a loss of ` 1,60,000 in all. The non-payment of the instalment amount to the complainant by the opposite party is a deficiency in service. Hence this complaint for the realisation of ` 1,84,200 under various heads from the opposite party as the chitty amount and its interests, compensation etc. 3. Opposite party filed his version with the following contentions:- Opposite party denied that he had no chitty transaction with the complainant and opposite party had not given any receipt to the complainant for receiving any amount. The opposite party never collected any amount from the complainant as chitty amount or otherwise. Opposite party never conducted or stopped any chitty business. Opposite party never collected any amount from the complainant or utilized it for any purpose. Opposite party is not liable to the complainant for any amount or interests, as the opposite party had no transaction with the complainant. The allegations in the complaint is in respect of an alleged chitty transaction and hence this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint and the dispute if any in this respect can only be settled under the Kerala Chitty Act. This complaint is without any bonafides and is filed on an experimental basis and none of the prayers are not allowable. With the above contentions, opposite party prays for the dismissal of the complaint with his costs. 4. On the basis of the above pleadings of the parties, the only point to be considered is whether this complaint can be allowed or not? 5. The evidence of this case consists of the oral deposition of the complainant who had been examined as PW1 on the basis of his proof affidavit and Exts.A1 series and the proof affidavit of the opposite party. After closure of the evidence, both sides were heard. 6. The Point:- The complainant’s allegation against the opposite party is that the opposite party is the Proprietor-cum-foreman of TVG Chitty Fund, Konni and the complainant had subscribed 2 chitties and paid 32 instalments and thus the complainant had paid a total amount of ` 1,60,000 to the opposite party. Thereafter he had not paid the remaining instalments as he had got information that the opposite party had misappropriated the cash collected from his subscribers and the opposite party is going to wind up the chitty business for cheating his customers. Thereafter the complainant demanded the amount paid by him for the 32 instalments. But the opposite party evaded the payment by one or other pretext. The non-payment of the chitty amount by the opposite party is a clear deficiency in service, which caused financial loss and mental agony to the complainant and the opposite party is liable to the complainant for the same. 7. In order to prove the complainant’s case, the complainant had filed a proof affidavit narrating his case along with three chitty receipts. On the basis of the proof affidavit, the complainant was examined as PW1 and the chitty receipts produced by the complainant is marked as Exts.A1, A1(a) and A1(b). Ext.A1 is the chitty receipt No.3454 issued from TVG Chitty Fund, Konni in the name of the complainant showing a payment of ` 10,000. Ext.A1(a) is the chitty receipt No.3349 issued from TVG Chitty Fund, Konni in the name of the complainant showing the payment of ` 5,000. Ext.A1(b) is the chitty receipt No.3350 issued from TVG Chitty Fund, Konni in the name of the complainant showing the payment of ` 5,000. 8. On the other hand, the opposite parties contention is that he had no transaction with the complainant and he had not collected any amount from the complainant or he had not issued any receipt to the complainant or received any amount. The opposite party had never conducted any chitty or stopped any chitty. The receipts produced by the complainant is not signed by the opposite party. The complainant is not entitled to get any reliefs claimed in the complaint and this complaint is without any bonafides and the opposite party has not committed any deficiency of service to the complainant. In order to prove the contentions of the opposite party, the opposite party had filed a proof affidavit in lieu of his chief examination. But from the complainant had not turned up to cross-examine the opposite party. 9. On the basis of the contentions and arguments of the parties, we have examined the available evidence before us. The complainant claims the payment of chitty amount to the opposite party on the basis of Ext.A1 series receipts. In Ext.A1 receipt the name of the Forman is seen as T.V. George but in Ext.A1(a) and A1(b) the name of the Forman is seen as George Mathew. The signature seen in the place of Foreman in all the 3 receipts is one and the same. The correct date of payment of instalment is not seen in the receipt. In Ext.A1, chittal number is shown as 20. In Ext.A1 instalment number is shown as 29 and 30. In Ext.A1(a) and A1(b) the instalment is shown as 31 and 32 respectively. The number of Ext.A1 receipt is 3454. The number of Ext.A1(a) is 3349 and A1(b) is 3350. The receipt numbers seen in Ext.A1 series receipts shows that receipt No.3349 was issued for the 31st instalment and receipt No.3350 was issued for the 32nd instalment whereas receipt No.3454 was issued for the 29th and 30th instalments. This shows that there is a difference in the sequence of the serial number in the receipt. The said difference in the sequence shows that the foreman had used a receipt book having receipt Nos.3349 and 3350 for collecting the 31st and 32nd instalments and he had used another receipt book having receipt No.3354 for collecting the 29th and 30th instalments. This is not practical in an institution carrying on a regular business. This discrepancy along with the indistinct entries in Ext.A1 series receipts such as the non-mention of the date of payment etc. casts doubt on the genuineness of Ext.A1 series receipts. If these indistinced receipts are issued by the opposite party purposely, what prevented the complainant from rectifying the defects of the receipts then and there. So we are not satisfied with the genuineness of Ext.A1 series receipts, also in the light of the total denial of the opposite party. Further in cross-examination, PW1 deposed before this Forum that George Mathew is the son of T.V. George and out of the two chitties subscribed from the said George Mathew one chitty was auctioned by the complainant and he had received Rs.70,000 etc. Deposition of PW1 is as follows:- “T.V. Georgeþsâ aI\mWv George Mathew. George Mathewþsâ IqsS tNÀ¶ Cu Nn«nIfn Hcp Nn«n ]nSn¨v 70,000/þ cq]m In«nbn«pv. He adds _m¡n ]Whpw ]enibpw X¶m aXn. C\nbpw e`n¡m\pÅXv 70,000/þ cq]m am{Xsa DÅp F¶p ]dbp¶p (Q) icnbmWv (A)”. But as per his complaint, he has to get ` 1,60,000 from the opposite party. The averments in the complaint and the oral deposition before this Forum are contradictory. The story of the complaint that the remaining chitty receipts are lost is not a believable story. All this contradictions and doubted genuineness of Ext.A1 series documents etc. shows that this complaint is filed by suppressing certain real facts and hence we find that this complaint lacks bonafides. Therefore, we find that the complainant’s case is not allowable and is liable to be dismissed. 10. In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No costs. Declared in the Open Forum on this the 3rd day of January, 2011. (Sd/-) Jacob Stephen, (President) Smt. C. Lathika Bhai (Member) : (Sd/-) Sri. N. Premkumar (Member) : (Sd/-) Appendix: Witness examined on the side of the complainant: PW1 : Raju Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant: A1 : Chitty receipt No.3454 for ` 10,000 issued by TVG Chitty Fund, Konni to the name of the complainant. A1(a) : Chitty receipt No.3349 for ` 5,000 issued by TVG Chitty Fund, Konni to the name of the complainant. A1(b) : Chitty receipt No.3350 for ` 5,000 issued by TVG Chitty Fund, Konni to the name of the complainant. Witness examined on the side of the opposite party: Nil. Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party: Nil. (By Order) Senior Superintendent. Copy to:- (1) V.G. Raju, Vettu Niravel, Athumbumkulam, Konni Thazham Village, Kozhencherry Taluk. (2) T.V. George, Proprietor-Cum-Foreman, (TVG Chitty Fund, Konni), Thundil House, Payyanamon.P.O., Iravon Village, Kozhencherry Taluk. (3) The Stock File. | 
