Andhra Pradesh

Chittoor-II at triputi

CC/3/2014

Smt. Gadugu Sarala Kumari W/o. G.R. Purushotham - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager, Kapil Chit Funds (Hyderabad) Pvt., Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

G.Ramaiah Pillai

03 Jun 2014

ORDER

Filing Date:06.01.2014

Order Date: 03.06.2014

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II,

TIRUPATI

 

PRESENT: Sri.M.Anand, President (FAC),

        Smt. T.Anitha, Member

 

TUESDAY THE THIRD DAY OF JUNE, TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN

 

C.C.No.03/2014

 

Between

 

Smt. Gadugu Sarala Kumari,

W/o. G.R.Purushotham,

2-528/5, S.K.D.Nagar,

Piler,

Chittoor District.                                                                              … Complainant

 

And

 

The Branch Manager,

Kapil Chit Funds (Hyderabad) Pvt. Ltd.,

II Branch,

K.T.Road,

Tirupati.                                                                                             …  Opposite party.

 

            This complaint coming on before us for final hearing on 20.05.14 and upon perusing the complaint, written version and other relevant material papers on record and on hearing Sri.G.Ramaiah Pillai, counsel for the complainant and opposite party remained exparte and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Forum makes the following:-

 

ORDER

DELIVERED BY SRI. M.ANAND, PRESIDENT (FAC)

ON BEHALF OF THE BENCH

 

            This is a complaint filed under Sections-12 and 14 of C.P.Act, against the opposite party for deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party in not paying the priced money to the complainant.

2. The brief averments in the complaint are that:-  The complainant is a subscriber of the chit under reference No.FTPTO40-28 for value of Rs.10,00,000/-, which is payable at monthly subscription of Rs.20,000/- in 50 installments. The complainant became successful bidder for Rs.6,54,000/- by foregoing Rs.3,46,000/- towards discount and furnished sureties, but the bid amount was not paid to the complainant and that the complainant got filed the case in C.C.No.49/2012 against the opposite party and it was disposed-of directing the opposite party to give a chance to the complainant to participate in the next bid and to comply the order. Thereafter, the complainant continuous the said chit and again participated in the bid held on 28.10.2013 by foregoing a discount of Rs.1,24,000/- and became entitled for the priced amount of Rs.8,76,000/-. Soon after the said bid, the complainant furnished sureties 4 in number. Even then the opposite party failed to pay the bid amount. Notice was also issued to the opposite party and even after the receipt of the legal notice, the opposite party failed to pay the bid amount and therefore there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party and due to which the complainant suffered mental agony and that the complainant filed this case for the reliefs as prayed for.

3.  After receipt of the notice, the opposite party failed to appear before the Forum and to defend his case and therefore the opposite party was set exparte.

4.  On behalf of the complainant, she herself filed affidavit on evidence and got marked Exs.A1 to A8. The complainant also filed written arguments.

5.  The points for consideration are:-

(i).  Whether the complainant furnished sureties as required by the opposite

        party?

(ii).  Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party?

(iii).  To what relief?

6.  Point Nos.(i) and (ii):-  To prove the case of the complainant, she herself filed affidavit on evidence and got marked Exs.A1 to A8. The affidavit on evidence of the complainant and Exs.A1 to A8 clearly evidencing that the complainant is the subscriber under chit reference No.FTPTO4P-28 for the value of Rs.10,00,000/- commencing from the month of August 2010 and being paid Rs.20,000/- per month towards subscription. While so, on 28.03.2012, the complainant participated in the bid and became successful bidder and as the priced amount was not paid by the opposite party, the complainant got filed C.C.No.49/2012 against the opposite party and said C.C. was disposed-of directing the opposite party to permit the complainant to participate in the next auction. Accordingly, the complainant continuous in the chit and participated in the chit held on 28.10.2013, became successful bidder by foregoing Rs.1,24,000/- towards discount out of Rs.10,00,000/- and the remaining amount of Rs.8,76,000/- should be paid to the complainant. It is further evidencing that the opposite party requested the complainant to furnish sufficient sureties and to withdraw the priced amount of Rs.8,76,000/-.

7.  According to the complainant on 06.11.2013, the complainant furnished      4 sureties along with their salary certificates in the office of opposite party. But on 08.11.2013 the opposite party got issued letters Exs.A4 and A5 to the complainant calling upon her to furnish sureties. Thereupon the complainant got issued Ex.A6 letter to the opposite party stating that she had already furnished the sureties and expedite the payment. The complainant also got issued Ex.A7 legal notice to the opposite party. After issuing Ex.A7 legal notice to the opposite party, the opposite party got issued Ex.A8 registered letter to the complainant requesting her to furnish sureties. Absolutely, there is no evidence to show that after receipt of Ex.A8, the complainant approached the opposite party and informed that she had already furnished sureties as required by the opposite party and need not be furnished again and again. The complainant got marked Ex.A3 photocopy of surety form said to have been furnished to the opposite party. Except the said photocopy of surety form, the complainant could not evince any interest to file affidavit on evidence of atleast any one of the sureties. When there is dispute with regard to furnish sureties, it is essential to file affidavit on evidence of sureties by the complainant. In the absence of affidavit on evidence of sureties, the contention of the complainant that she had already furnished sureties to the opposite party is doubtful. Further perused Ex.A3 photocopy of surety form and found that it does not contain the signature of priced subscriber i.e. the complainant underneath declaration and it is kept blank. The priced subscriber i.e. the complainant ought to have sign on the surety form, without signature of the priced subscriber i.e the complainant in the surety form, it cannot be looked into. Further Ex.A3 does not contain the date on which it was delivered to the opposite party. In the absence of signature of the complainant on the surety form, the evidence of atleast one of the sureties is essential to believe the contents in Ex.A3 to be true and correct. Further Ex.A3 does not contain any endorsement to believe that surety form was furnished to the opposite party by the complainant. It is therefore except inconsistent evidence of the complainant, absolutely there is no cogent evidence to believe the version of the complainant that she had already furnished sureties on 06.11.2013 to the opposite party. In the absence of positive evidence that the complainant furnished sufficient sureties to the opposite party and the opposite party accepted the same, it cannot be said that there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party in payment of priced amount of Rs.8,76,000/- to the complainant.

8.  Further the complainant herself got marked Ex.A8 bid cancellation letter issued by the opposite party. In Ex.A8, it is categorically got it mentioned that the complainant has to furnish sufficient sureties to withdraw the priced amount within 7 days after receipt of Ex.A8, failing which bid would be cancelled as per the chit fund agreement. After receipt of Ex.A8, the complainant kept quiet till 06.01.2014 and thereafter she got filed this complaint against the opposite party. The learned counsel for the complainant contended that if the complainant failed to furnish sureties within the time given, the opposite party ought to have deposited the amount of Rs.8,76,000/- in any nationalized bank and against the said procedure the opposite party cancelled the bid. Admittedly, the complainant is the subscriber in a chit, participated in the bid and became successful bidder. If that be so, the bid could not be cancelled on the pretext that the complainant failed to furnish sureties and the bid amount should be deposited in any nationalized bank and an opportunity should be given to the complainant to withdraw that amount after furnishing sufficient sureties and after deducting installments as per Ex.A1 chit agreement. From the above reasons, we are of the opinion that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. However, the complainant is entitled for the priced amount as prayed for.

9.  Accordingly, points 1 and 2 are answered.

10.  Point No.(iii):-  In the result, the complaint is partly allowed directing the opposite party to release the priced amount after accepting the sureties furnished by the complainant and after deducting the installments to be paid by the complainant from the date of auction, till today. The rest of the claim regarding the compensation and litigation expenses is hereby dismissed without costs. 

Typed to dictation by the stenographer, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum this the 3^rd day of June, 2014.

       Sd/-                                                                                                                 Sd/-            

Lady Member                                                                                               President (FAC)

 

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED ON BOTH SIDES

 

PW-1: G.S.Kumari (Evidence Affidavit filed).

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT/S

 

Exhibits	Date		Description of Documents
Ex.A1			Copy of Chit agreement in printed form.
2	30.10.2013		Copy of order in C.C.No.49/2012 of District Consumer Forum-II, Tirupati.
3	06.11.2013		Photo Copy of surety form duly filed by the sureties with their salary particulars.
4	08.11.2013		Letter from the Opposite Party calling for sureties.
5.	15.11.2013		Letter from the Opposite Party calling for sureties.
6.	06.12.2013		Letter by the Complainant that he has already furnished the sureties and expedite the payment.
7	16.12.2013	Legal Notice to the Opposite Party.
8	18.12.2013	Registered letter by the Opposite Party with a request to furnish the sureties.

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY/S

 

- Nil -

 

                                                                                                                                                                                                            Sd/-   

President (FAC)

// TRUE COPY //

// BY ORDER //

 

Head Clerk/Sheristadar,

           Dist. Consumer Forum-II, Tirupati.

 

Copies to:-     1. The Complainant.

                        2. The opposite party.