Tamil Nadu
North Chennai
CC/186/2018
R.Palani S/o.S.Ranganathan - Complainant(s)
Versus
The Authorized Signatory Manager Shri Ram Investment Limited - Opp.Party(s)
Somasundaram
10 Apr 2024
ORDER
Complaint presented on :29.01.2008 Date of disposal :10.04.2024
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
CHENNAI (NORTH)
@ 2ND Floor, T.N.P.S.C. Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai – 600 003.
PRESENT: THIRU. G.VINOBHA, M.A., B.L. : PRESIDENT
TMT. KAVITHA KANNAN,M.E., : MEMBER-1
THIRU V. RAMAMURTHY, B.A.B.L., PGDLA : MEMBER II
C.C. No.186/2018
DATED THIS WEDNESDAY THE 10th DAY OF APRIL 2024
R. Palani,
S/o. S. Ranganathan,
No.12, North Street,
1st Cross,
Balaji Nagar,
Karaikal – 609 602. .. Complainant.
..Vs..
1.The Authorized Signatory / Manager,
Shriram Investment Limited,
Administration Office,
Mookambika complex,
3rd Floor, No.4, Lady Desigachari Road,
Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004.
2.The Manager,
Shriram Chits,
Maj Apartments (I Floor),
No.149,, Bharathiyar Street,
Karaikal – 609 602. .. Opposite Parties.
Counsel for the Complainant : M/s. Somasundaram
Counsel for 1st Opposite Party : M/s. Poovanalingam
Counsel for 2nd Opposite Party : Ananthakrishnan
ORDER
THIRU. V. RAMAMURTHY, B.A., B.L., PGDLA, MEMBER
(i) This complaint has been filed by the Complainant against the Opposite Parties under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 prays to directing the Opposite Parties jointly or severally to pay to the Complainant a sum of Rs.20,000/- issued in two deposits receipts dated 20.09.2007 with interest till date of realization and to pay an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for the mental agony, inconvenience, hardship suffered by the Complainant and the cost of the complaint.
This complaint was originally filed before the District Commission, Chennai (South) and taken on file in C.C. No. 113/2008. Thereafter, the said complaint has been transferred to this Commission as per the proceedings of the Registrar S.C.D.R.C. in R.C. No. A1/2282/2018 dated 11.09.2018 and taken on file as C.C. No.186/2018.
I. THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:
1. The Complainant states that he had joined the chit group of Rs.1,00,000/- with 2nd opposite party and had paid entire monthly subscription amount for the chit group regularly and completed the same till the date of termination period. The 2nd opposite party at the time of repaying the chit amount had not paid the entire amount but paid only Rs.80,000/- after deducting the foreman’s commissions of 5% and the balance of Rs.20,000/- the 2nd opposite party forced the Complainant to receive the deposit receipt and to get back the same after some time. The Complainant further submits that even though the Complainant is in need of money but due to pressure by the opposite party without having alternate remedy the Complainant had received the receipt No.6006648 dated 20.09.1997 for Rs.10,000/- in deposit receipt type of deposit special in No.YZC 5501655 and another receipt for Rs.10,000/- issued in the name of same type of deposit dated 20.09.1997 in No.6006649 in deposit receipt No.YZC 5501656, since the 1st opposite party vested with power in the capacity of Authorized Signatory. The Complainant after reasonable time had approached the 2nd opposite party and requested to pay the balance Rs.20,000/- deposit amount, but the Opposite Parties have not responded and not handed over the deposit amount. The Complainant further states that inspite of his repeated efforts to get the money, but the 2nd opposite party intentionally failed and evaded to make payment. Hence the Complainant had issued a legal notice on 06.06.2007 to Opposite Parties to pay Rs.20,000/- with interest from 20.09.2007 to till date. In response to this, the opposite party had issued a proceeding dated 09.07.2007 stating that as though the above certificate have already been refunded to a sum of Rs.23,000/- by a cheque dated 22.09.1998 with further observations. The Complainant states that he had neither received the alleged cheque nor realized the chit of Rs.23,000/- and as a matter of fact the Complainant is in custody of the above deposit receipts dated 20.09.2007 which itself clearly established that he had not been paid with the deposit amount by the Opposite Parties. If it is really paid to the Complainant, the Opposite Parties would have received the original deposit receipts from him. Denying the contention of the proceedings, the Complainant again sent a legal notice on 31.07.2007 to repay the amount with interest but the Opposite Parties have not paid the said amount which puts the Complainant to irreparable monetary loss, hardship and mental agony. Hence this complaint.
II. WRITTEN VERSION OF 1st OPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF:
2. The 1st opposite party submits that the complaint against 1st opposite party is not maintainable either in law or in facts. The complaint is to be dismissed against this opposite party is limine. The allegations in paras 3,4 and 5 of the complaint are against the 2nd opposite party only except the allegation that the deposit receipt issued by the 1st opposite party. The 1st opposite party submits that the branches which collect the deposits from public will send it to Head Office and the Head Office in turn will issue receipts for the same. When the deposit matures the first opposite party would refund the amount with interest to the concerned branch and the branch in turn will refund the amount to the respective customers. There is no direct nexus between the Shriram Investments Ltd., and chit subscribers. The 1st opposite party submits that 1st opposite party had sent a demand draft dated 22.09.1998 for Rs.23,000/- vide number 777366 in favour of ‘Shriram Chits Tamilnadu Pvt. Ltd.,’ to the 2nd opposite party for the purpose of refunding the amount to the Complainant. Since this opposite party has repaid the amount with interest, the 1st opposite party is not liable to pay any amount as prayed by the Complainant. Therefore the 1st opposite party prays to Hon’ble District Commission to dismiss the complaint against 1st opposite party and render justice.
III.WRITTEN VERSION OF 2nd OPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF:
3. The 2nd opposite party submits that the entire cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of Karaikal and no cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Commission. By merely impleading the first opposite party the Complainant has conferred the jurisdiction of this Commission and on this ground the complaint has to be returned to be presented before the proper Commission. The 2nd opposite party denies all the allegations contained in the complaint as false, unsustainable and devoid of merits except those that are specifically admitted hereunder and put the Complainant to the strict proof of the rest. The complaint is neither maintainable in law nor on facts and the same is liable to be dismissed in limini. The 2nd opposite party submits that Complainant is a chit subscriber of Karaikal branch joined the chit on 23.01.1996 bearing chit group No.55002/12 to the value of Rs.1 lakh. The said chit subscription payable is Rs.4,000/- per month for 25 months. The Complainant bid the chit on 23.08.1997 at the 20th auction for the bid amount of Rs.5,000/- and the prize money payable is Rs.95,000/-. At the time of auctioning the chit, the Complainant is liable to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards future installment. The 2nd opposite party issued the prize money cheque to the Complainant on 20.09.1997 under cheque No.200058 drawn on City Union Bank for a sum of Rs.94,775/-. The Complainant voluntarily paid a sum of Rs.20,000/- to Shriram Insurance Limited in a one year deposit scheme. The details of deposit are (a) YZC-5501655 dated 20.09.1997 for Rs.10,000/- and (b) YZC – 5501656 dated 20.09.1997 for a sum of Rs.10,000/-. The above said two deposits were marked as lien towards payment of future installments as security to the said prized chits. After paying the entire subscription amount, the lien was cancelled and on the maturity, amount being refunded to the 2nd opposite party for a sum of Rs.23,000/- under cheque No.777366 drawn on City Union Bank was paid to the chit holder on 22.09.1998. The said cheque was debited in the 2nd opposite party account on 26.09.1998 in the name of the Complainant. Consequently the deposit receipt was cancelled. Having received the maturity amount from the opposite party company, the present complaint filed is barred by estoppels and liable to be dismissed. The 2nd opposite submits that suppressing the payment received, the present complaint is fraudulently filed after the lapse of nearly 9 years, to make illegal gain. The cause of action arose during 1998 and therefore the complaint is barred by limitation under Section 24-A of the Act. The 2nd opposite party submits that there is no deficiency in service and further submits that records are maintained only for seven years and hence the 2nd opposite party is not in a position to produce all the records and producing only available proof and it is Complainant to prove the complaint and deficiency. It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Commission may be pleased to dismiss the complaint with exemplary cost and thus render justice.
IV. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:
1. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties as alleged in the complaint?
2. Whether the Complainant is entitled to the reliefs prayed in the complaint. If, so to what extent?
The Complainant had filed proof affidavit, written arguments and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A7 were marked on his side.The Opposite Parties have filed written version, proof affidavit, written arguments and documents Ex.B1 was marked on the part of 1st opposite party and Ex.B2 to B9 were marked on the part of 2nd opposite party.
V. Point No.1:-
4. The learned counsel for 2nd opposite party in his oral submissions and also in his averments contended that entire cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of Karaikal and no part of cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of this Commission. The Complainant on the other hand contended that though the chit transaction took place at Karaikal but the dispute arose at Chennai as the deposit receipts and reply dated 09.07.2007 has been issued by 1st opposite party at Chennai and hence the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission. The 1st opposite party contended that branches will collect the deposits from public will send it to Head Office and the Head Office in turn will issue receipts for the same. On perusal of averments of Complainant and Opposite Parties, the complaint is related to refund of deposit made with 1st opposite party through 2nd opposite party. On perusal of Ex.A2, A3, B3 and B4 the deposit receipts were issued by the 1st opposite party which falls under the jurisdiction of this Commission. In view of the above facts, we are of the considered opinion, that a part of the cause of action occurred within the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission and hence the contention of the 2nd opposite party regarding territorial jurisdiction of the complaint is not maintainable.
5. The learned counsel for 2nd opposite party in his oral submissions and also in their averments contended that cause of action arose in 1998 and complaint was filed by the Complainant after lapse of 9 years and therefore the complaint is barred by limitation. On the other hand the Complainant contended that Opposite Parties have not paid the deposit amounts with interest to Complainant and therefore the Complainant had issued a legal notice on 06.06.2007 for which the 1st opposite party had issued a proceedings on 09.07.2007 and had sent another legal notice on 31.07.2007 denying their contention. On perusal of receipts given by the 1st opposite party which is marked as Ex.A2 and A3, it is observed that Complainant had made two deposits of Rs.10,000/- each on 20 Sep. 2007. It is observed from Ex.B3 and B4, the deposits were made on 20 Sept. 1997 for a period of 12.03 months and the maturity date was 21 Sep. 1998. According to the above facts, the cause of action occurred on 21 Sep.1998, whereas the complaint was filed in January 2008 which is after a lapse of nine and half years. It is pertinent to note that even the Complainant had sent notice to Opposite Parties in June 2007 after a gap of 8 years. According to Section 69 (1) of Consumer Protection Act, 2019, the complaint has to be filed within 2 years from the date of cause of action and in this case, the complaint was filed after a gap of nine and half years and no condonation petition was filed by the Complainant. In view of the above facts, we are of the conclusive opinion that the complaint is barred by limitation.
6. The Complainant alleged that from the chit amount the Opposite Parties forced the Complainant to deposit Rs.20,000/- and get back the same after some time. The Complainant after payment of entire chit subscription had approached the 2nd opposite party for the deposit amount with interest, the 2nd opposite party have not responded properly and evade payment of the deposit amount. The Complainant further alleged that when he issued a legal notice on 06.06.1997, the 1st opposite party responded vide their letter dated 09.07.1997 stating that the deposit amount with interest of Rs.23,000/- was already refunded to Complainant by a cheque dated 22.09.1998. The contention of the Complainant is that he has not received any cheque or payment from the Opposite Parties till date and further contended that the deposit receipts dated 20.09.1997 are in the custody of Complainant which itself clearly established that he had not been paid with the deposit amount by the Opposite Parties. On the other hand the 1st opposite party contended that they does not collect the deposits with individuals and the branch office collects deposit from the individuals and forward the same to the 1st opposite party. The 1st opposite party would return the deposit amount with interest on maturity to the concerned branch. The branch will return the amount to the respective customer. There is no direct nexus between the 1st opposite party and chit subscribers. It is further contended that 1st opposite party had sent a demand draft No.777366 dated 22.07.1998 for Rs.23,000/- in favour of Shriram Chits Tamil Nadu Ltd., Nagapattinam thus repaid the amount with interest to the concerned branch. The 2nd opposite party on their part contended that chit prized money of Rs.94,775/- was issued vide Cheque No.200058 dated 20.09.1997 to Complainant and it was the Complainant voluntarily paid a sum of 20,000/- to Shriram Investments Limited in a one year deposit scheme. The two deposit amounts of Rs.10,000/- each were marked as lien towards payment of future instalments as security to the said prized chits. The 2nd opposite party further contended that after payment of entire chit subscription the lien was cancelled and the maturity amount of Rs.23,000/- under cheque No.777366 drawn on City Union Bank was paid to chit holder on 22.09.1998 and the said cheque was debited in the 2nd opposite party account on 26.09.1998 in the name of Complainant. The 2nd opposite party further contends that the records are maintained only for seven years and hence they are not in a position to produce all the records and producing only available proof.
7. On perusal of averments and documents submitted on both sides it is observed there is no dispute that the Complainant had subscribed a chit with 2nd opposite party for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with monthly subscription of Rs.4,000/- and the Complainant had bid the chit at 20th auction as evidenced in Ex.A1. There is also no dispute that Complainant had deposited two deposits of Rs.10,000/- each on 20 Sep. 1997 with 1st opposite party as evidenced in Ex.A2 and A3. It is observed from Ex.B3 and B4, the deposit was special type, date of deposit on 20.09.1997 for 12.03 months and date of maturity on 21 Sep. 1998 with Deposit No.YZC-5501655 and YZC-5501656. The allegation of the Complainant is that the deposit amount was not refunded to him and hence he had sent a legal notice on 06.06.2007 which is marked as Ex.A5. It is observed from Ex.A6 and B9, the reply from the 1st opposite party that deposit amount was refunded vide cheque bearing no.51471 dated 22.09.1998 for Rs.23,000/- drawn on Indian Bank in favour of Palani R. Whereas on perusal of Ex.B1, B4 & B5, the sub ledger of 2nd opposite party it is observed that on 26.09.1998 an entry as “Being the amount paid to Mr. Palani towards DEB Refund (Che. No.777366)” is found. It is also observed in Ex.B7, the internal memo between 2nd opposite party and their legal office at Chennai, the 2nd opposite party acknowledge receipt of Cheque No.746386 dated 22.09.1998 for Rs.32,200/- which includes Complainant amount and also informed that they will issue the cheque No.777366 for Rs.23,000/- to Complainant. Whereas in the written version of the 1st opposite party, it is observed that Cheque No.777366 dated 22.09.1998 for Rs.23,000/- was drawn infavour of Shriram Chits Tamil Nadu Ltd. From the averments of the 2nd opposite party, it is observed that a sum of Rs.23,000/- was refunded to Complainant vide Cheque No.777366 dated 22.09.1998 drawn on City Union Bank and the same was debited in the 2nd opposite party account on 26.09.1998. It is further observed on perusal of Ex.A4, the bank statement of Complainant no entry of credit of Rs.23,000/- was observed during the period stated by the 2nd opposite party. The Complainant contended that the alleged original deposit receipts are in the custody of Complainant and if it was paid to Complainant, the Opposite Parties would have received the original deposit receipts from the Complainant as a usual practice and procedures adopted by the Opposite Parties. The 2nd opposite party in their version contended that records are maintained only for seven years only and hence they are not in a position to produce all the records. But the 2nd opposite party filed a petition CMP 210/2018 praying for filing documents and in the counter the 1st respondent/Complainant in the said CMP he consents for production of the so called ‘Refunded Deposit Slips’ and the CMP 210/2018 was allowed by this Commission and accordingly 2nd opposite party’s documents were marked as Ex.B2 to B9. The 2nd opposite party had filed another petition vide CMP 211/2018 praying direction to Complainant to produce the two Original Deposit Receipts and the Commission allowed the CMP 211/2018 directing the Complainant to produce the original FDR No.YZC5501655 and YZC5501656 both for Rs.10,000/- each if available before this Commission at the time of final arguments. On perusal of Ex.B3 and B4, the Deposit Receipts No. YZC5501655 and YZC5501656 it is observed that lien was cancelled and the amount was refunded. Whereas, the Complainant had failed to produce the alleged Original Deposit Receipts before this Commission at the time final arguments and hence an adverse inference has to be drawn against the complainant for non production of original FDRs which were alleged to be in his custody. Further such non production of original FDRs by the complainant will strengthen the case of the 2nd opposite party that they have cancelled and refunded the deposit amount to the complainant on 22.09.1998. Therefore, we are of the considered view that Complainant has failed to prove that the Opposite Parties have not paid the deposit amount with interest from the date of maturity.
8. Based on the observations from the above, this Commission is of the considered view that the complaint is barred by limitation and further the Complainant has failed to prove the non-payment of deposit amount with interest from the date of maturity by the Opposite Parties and on the contrary it is found that the 2nd opposite party has already refunded the amount in respect of two FDRs on 22.09.1998 itself and therefore there is no deficiency in service is observed on the part of Opposite Parties. Point No.1 is answered accordingly.
VI. Point No.2.
9. Based on findings given in Point.No.1 the complaint failed to prove the non-payment of deposit amount in respect of two FDRs by the 2nd opposite party to the complainant and further failed to prove the deficiency in service as alleged in the complaint and hence the complainant is not entitled for a sum of Rs.20,000/- with interest from 20.09.1997 as claimed in the complaint and also not entitled for compensation as claimed in the complaint. Point no.2 answered accordingly.
In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No costs.
Dictated by Member II to the Steno-Typist taken down, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 10th day of April 2024.
MEMBER I MEMBER – II PRESIDENT
LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:
Ex.A1 | 22.02.1996 | Pass book Shriram Chit |
Ex.A2 | 20.09.1997 | Deposit receipts |
Ex.A3 | 20.09.2007 | Deposit receipts |
Ex.A4 | 13.07.1996 | Indian Bank S.B. Pass Book |
Ex.A5 | 06.06.2007 | Legal Notice with acknowledgements |
Ex.A6 | 09.07.2007 | Proceedings with cover |
Ex.A7 | 31.07.2007
| Legal Notice with acknowledgements |
LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE 1st OPPOSITE PARTY:
Ex.B1 |
| Sub ledger extract filed by the 1st opposite party |
LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE 2nd OPPOSITE PARTY:
Ex.B2 | 20.09.1997 | Deposit Receipt |
Ex.B3 | 20.09.1997 | Deposit Receipt |
Ex.B4 | 20.09.1997` | Deposit Receipt |
Ex.B5 | 23.05.2008 | Voucher |
Ex.B6 | 26.06.2008 | Voucher |
Ex.B7 | 20.08.2008 | Internal Memo by Opposite Party |
Ex.B8 | 25.06.2008 | Notice by 1st Respondent’s counsel |
Ex.B9 | 09.07.2007 | Reply |
MEMER – I MEMBER – II PRESIDENT
CC.NO.186/2018, Dated:10.04.2024
Order Pronounced,
In the result the complaint is dismissed. No costs.
Member-I Member-II President
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.
Bhanu Pratap
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)
Bhanu Pratap
Featured RecomendedHighly recommended!
Experties
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Phone Number
7982270319
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.