Per Sri A. Hazarath Rao,  President:-

          The complainant filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking a direction to the opposite parties for grant of loan clearance letter to her; claiming Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony; Rs.25,000/- towards compensation and Rs.10,000/- towards legal expenses.

2.   In brief the averments of the complaint are hereunder:

           One Gokaraju Nagaraju is husband of the complainant.   The said Nagaraju was a subscriber of five chits with the 1^st opposite party and its branch at Mangalagiri.   The complainant paid 18 installments @Rs.2,000/- each in respect of four chits worth of Rs.1,00,000/- each spread over for a period of fifty months and paid seven monthly installments @Rs.20,000/- in respect of the chit of Rs.6,00,000/- spread over for a period of thirty months.      The said Gokaraju in order to eek out his livelihood on 30-06-2010 purchased two lorries for Rs.4,50,000/- each with the financial assistance from the 2^nd opposite party with a promise to repay that amount at an EMI of Rs.24750/- each.  The said Nagaraju also agreed to create lien over those five chits as a guarantee.   The said Nagaraju obtained sale papers from lorry owners for obtaining registration in his name.   Before transferring title of the lorries in his name the said Nagaraju died on 22-07-10.   Due to unhealthy competition and ups and downs in business in financial business the said Nagaraju incurred loss and therefore was unable to pay subscription of those chits and EMIs on lorry loans.   The complainant suffered severe mental agony due to sudden demise of her husband.   Children of the complainant are too young.   The complainant is a semi literate and has no source of income.  The complainant along with her family members approached the opposite parties and gave her consent to repay the loan amount due under two lorries by adjusting the amount paid in those chits.   The complainant sold two lorries and paid Rs.3,21,250/- by way of cheques dated 21-09-10, Rs.1,50,000/- by way of cash on 12-08-10, Rs.1,50,000/- by way of cash on 16-08-10, Rs.34,550/- each on two occasions by way of cash and Rs.40,000/- by way of chit adjustment. The complainant thus paid Rs.7,25,000/- towards discharge of husband’s loan as advised by the opposite parties.   The opposite parties promised to give full settlement and loan clearance letter to the complainant.  After receiving Rs.7,25,000/- the opposite parties failed to close the loan and issue loan clearance letter.  The opposite parties demanded Rs.4,00,000/- towards loan after the above payments.   The complainant approached the opposite parties and one Ravi Shankar, Divisional Manager, Guntur and requested them to do justice.   All of them refused to give loan clearance to the complainant.  The opposite parties also obtained the signatures on unfilled forms five in number along with a written letter to the Branch Manager, City Union Finance.     The said conduct of the opposite parties in not issuing clearance letter inspite of payment amounted to deficiency of service.   The attitude of the opposite parties caused mental agony to the complainant.  The complaint therefore be allowed.

3.   The contention of the opposite parties in brief is hereunder:

          The complainant is not a consumer within the meaning section 2(1)(d) of Consumer Protection Act.   During his lifetime the complainant’s husband subscribed four chits with Shriram Chits Private Limited, Mangalagiri branch and one chit with the 1^st opposite party as shown in the complaint.  The complainant’s husband paid Rs.27,798/- each in respect of four chits with Shriram Chits Private Limited, Mangalagiri branch and Rs.1,09,000/- in respect of the chit with the 1^st opposite party.   The complainant’s husband availed personal loan of Rs.1,00,000/- on 28-04-10 agreeing to repay the same in 12 months @Rs.10,295/- p.m.   The complainant’s husband also availed two loans each for Rs.4,50,000/- from the 2^nd opposite party for purchasing two lorries and agreed to repay the same in 24 monthly installments @Rs.24,750/- pm.   The complainant’s husband paid Rs.9,900/- only towards his personal loan account; paid 10 full installments and part of 11^th installment in respect of one lorry loan; paid fourteen full installments and fifteenth installment in part.   The complainant on 22-07-10 informed the Branch Manager, Shriram chits, Mangalagiri and the 1^st opposite party stating that she is nominee of the above referred chits and requested the Branch Managers to adjust the amounts due to her deceased husband in respect of those chits.  The opposite parties adjusted Rs.91,192/- being the actual amount paid by the complainant’s husband in MGLK – 8/43; 8/30; 8/44 and 8/29 to the lorry loan account No.CSLB PTL 10000369.  Likewise an amount of Rs.79,000/- due to complainant’s husband in chit No.BPRX 1/14 of Bapatla branch (OP1) to his personal loan account No.CPLBPTL 10000207.   After adjusting the said amounts the complainant’s husband was due in a sum of Rs.9,978/-  towards his personal loan account.   The complainant’s husband became due in a sum of Rs.2,12,641/- in lorry loan a/c No.CSLBPTL 10000369 and Rs.1,93,860/- in lorry loan A/c.No. CSLBPTL 10000370.  Thus the complainant’s husband is due in a sum of Rs.4,21,471/- in all loan accounts and the same was intimated to the complainant.   Rest of the allegations contra mentioned in the complaint are false and were invented by the complainant to suit her case.   The opposite parties did not commit any deficiency of service.   The complaint therefore be dismissed.  

4.   Exs.A-1 to A-13 and Exs.B-1 to B-19 were marked on behalf of complainant and opposite parties respectively.  

5.    Now the points for consideration are:

1. Whether the complainant is a consumer?
2. Whether the opposite parties committed deficiency of service?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled to any compensation?
4. To what relief?

6.   Admitted facts in this case are these:

          a. Complainant’s husband Gokaraju Nagaraju was subscriber of the                 chits MGLK 8/30, 8/43, 8/44, 8/29 and BPRX-1/14 (Exs.A-1 to A-5).

          b. Complainant’s husband Gokaraju Nagaraju obtained two loans      

               worth of Rs.4,50,000/- each for purchasing lorries (Exs.A6&7).  

          c. Complainant’s husband died on 22-07-10 (Ex.A-10).

          d. The complainant informed the opposite parties regarding her                                  husband’s death and requested them to adjust the amount in                chits towards lorry loans (Exs.A-12 and A-13).    

 7.   POINT No.1:-    The complainant’s husband is a subscriber of chits with M/s Shriram Chits, Mangalagiri Branch and the 1^st opposite party.  In her complaint and affidavit the complainant mentioned that her husband purchased two lorries to eek out livelihood.  The opposite parties did not adduce any evidence contra to it stating that the said Nagaraju obtained commercial loans.   Under those circumstances, the complainant being legal heir of her husband falls under the definition of consumer within the purview of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.   We therefore answer this point in favour of complainant.      

8.   POINT No.2:-   In her complaint the complainant mentioned that she paid Rs.3,21,250/- by way of cheques on 21-09-10; Rs.1,50,000/- by way of cash on 12-08-10; Rs.1,50,000/- by way of cash on 16-08-10; Rs.34,550/- each on two occasions by way of cash and Rs.40,000/- by way of chit adjustment.  In the affidavit filed on 26-03-12 along with the complaint the complainant mentioned that she paid  Rs.3,21,250/- by way of cheques on 21-09-10; Rs.1,50,000/- by way of cheques on 12-08-10; Rs.1,50,000/- by way of cheques on 16-08-10; Rs.34,550/- each on two occasions by way of cash and Rs.40,000/- by way of chit adjustment.   But in the affidavit filed on 28-09-12 the complainant mentioned that she paid  Rs.3,21,250/- by way of cash on 21-09-10; Rs.1,50,000/- by way of cash on 12-08-10; Rs.1,50,000/- by way of cash on 16-08-10; Rs.34,550/- each on two occasions by way of cash and Rs.40,000/- by way of chit adjustment.  The averments made in the complaint, in the affidavit filed on 26-03-12 along with the complaint and in the evidence affidavit filed on 28-09-12 differ regarding the mode of payment of Rs.3,21,250/- on 21-09-10; Rs.1,50,000/- on 12-08-10; and Rs.1,50,000/- on 16-08-10.   The complainant did not furnish cheque numbers or receipts showing those payments.  In the absence of cheque numbers and receipts showing those payments the material discrepancy regarding mode of above payments leads us to infer that the complainant miserably failed in proving those payments.  

9.      This Forum at the request of complainant referred the matter to Lok Adalat on 29-10-12.   The endorsements made by the Secretary, DLSA revealed that the complainant was absent on 31-10-12 and 03-11-12.   This Forum also granted more than reasonable time for the parties to effect compromise.   But it appears that no settlement took place between the parties.   In the absence of proof of those payments the contention of the complainant that she paid Rs.7,25,000/- cannot be believed.   We therefore opine that the opposite parties did not commit any deficiency of service as alleged by the complainant and answer this point against the complainant.         

10. POINT No.3:-   In view of above findings, the complainant is not entitled to any compensation.   We therefore answer this point also against the complainant.

11.  POINT No.4:-   In veiw of above findings, in the result the complaint is dismissed without costs.

            Typed to my dictation by Junior Steno, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum dated this the 3^rd day of April, 2013.

MEMBER                                             MEMBER                                 PRESIDENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Complainant:

For opposite parties:   

     PRESIDENT

NB:   The parties are required to collect the extra sets within a month after receipt of this order either personally or through their advocate as otherwise the extra sets shall be weeded out.