BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM RAICHUR.
COMPLAINT NO. DCFR. 33/11.
THIS THE 23rd DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2011.
P R E S E N T
1. Sri. Pampapathi B.sc.B.Lib. LLB PRESIDENT.
2. Sri. Gururaj, B.com.LLB. (Spl) MEMBER.
3. Smt. Pratibha Rani Hiremath,M.A. (Sanskrit) MEMBER.
*****
COMPLAINANT :- Maheboob Sab S/o. Fakkruddin C/o. Vinay
Automobiles, Gangavathi Road, Sindhanoor.
//VERSUS//
OPPOSITE PARTIES :- 1. The Branch Manager, KAPIL CHITS
(KARNATAKA) PVT. LTD., Dr Prabhakar Complex, Opp: New Bus stand, Sindhanoor.
2. The Regional Manager, KAPIL CHITS (KARNATAKA) PVT LTD., Near Poornima Theater, Raichur.
CLAIM :- For the direction against the opposites to return
the amount of Rs. 62,500/- along with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. cost of the proceedings Rs. 15,000/- and compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/-. Further he has also sought a direction regarding return of all the documents which are submitted by the complainant as sureties
Date of institution :- 17-05-11.
Notice served :- 10-06-11.
Date of disposal :- 23-09-11.
Complainant represented by Sri. Srivatsa.D. Hardar, Advocate.
Opposite Parties No-1 & 2 represented by Sri.V. Yankanna, Advocate.
-----
This case coming for final disposal before us, the Forum on considering the entire material and evidence placed on record by the parties passed the following.
******
JUDGEMENT
By Sri. Gururaj, Member
This is a complaint filed U/sec. 12 of Consumer Protection Act by the complainant Mehaboob Sab against the four Respondents (1) The Branch Manager, Kapil Chits (Karnataka) Pvt. Ltd., Sindhanoor (2) The Regional Manager, Kapil Chits (Karnataka) Pvt. Ltd., Raichur. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:
The opposite company is running chit fund business under the name and style as shown in the cause title. The complainant has become the subscriber in the said chit fund company on 31-08-09 for a chit amount of Rs. 5,00,000- by paying Rs. 10,500/- out of which Rs,. 300/- collected towards registration fee Rs. 10,200/- credited to the complainant’s account. The complainant regularly paid a sum of Rs. 6,500/- in eight monthly installments as per the terms and conditions of the agreement dt. 31-08-09. It is the case of the complainant that, in third month chit No. CNTOIJ No.3, he was successful bidder of chit for a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- and as per the terms and conditions of the agreement demand made by the opposite company, the complainant submitted three (3) sureties namely C.Venugopal, K.Venkatprasad, Veeresh Malipatil, and demanded for to release of the bid amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- in the bank as mentioned in clause 12 of the terms and conditions of the agreement. But the opposite parties did not make the payment, nor returned the documents submitted as sureties. Further, it is the case of the complainant that, the opposite parties issued a certificate No. B/KAR/4/2010 called BHU-ADIPATI SCHEME, and informed to the complainant that, the chit amount has been invested in the above said scheme. This was shocked him and made enquiry with the opposite party regarding deposit of the said amount in the BHU ADIPATI SCHEME, without informing and taking his consent. The act of the opposite party regarding non payment of the bid amount and issuing the notice to the sureties stating that, the complainant has not repaid the amount is negligent act of the opposites. The sureties have lost trust on complainant for which the opposite parties are liable to compensate for the same. Hence he has sought for the direction against the opposites to return the amount of Rs. 62,500/- along with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. cost of the proceedings Rs. 15,000/- and compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/-. Further he has also sought a direction regarding return of all the documents which are submitted by the complainant as sureties
2. In response to service of notice Ops 1 & 2 have appeared through their counsel. Op.No-2 has filed written statement which is adopted by the opposite No-1 through memo dt. 12-07-11. The Ops have admitted about the subscription of the chit and about successful bidder of the chit No. CNTOIJ No.3 for an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/-. The opposites in their written version contended that, after successful bid as per the terms and conditions, the complainant ought to have furnished three sureties for the release of bid/prize amount. But instead of furnishing the sureties the complainant himself submitted an application stating that, he wish to invest the prize money in a BHU ADIPATHI SCHEME, with the opposite company M/s. Shiplpa Shelters ltd., for a period 36 months, accordingly the opposites have invested the prize money in the above said scheme vide certificate No. B/KAR/4/2010 dt. 12-01-10. hence there is no any deficiency of service or unfair trade practice as alleged by the complainant. The opposites have correctly intimated or replied to the notice got issued by the complainant suitably based on the records. Hence, sought for dismissal of the complaint with exemplary cost.
3. During the course of enquiry, the complainant has filed sworn-affidavit by way of examination-in-chief and has got marked (9) documents at Ex.P-1 to P-9. In rebuttal, the Ops have filed sworn-affidavit of Op.No-2 by way of examination-in-chief. The three documents filed by the opposites were got marked as Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-3.
4. Heard the arguments of both sides and perused the records. The following points arise for our consideration and determination:
1. Whether the complainant proves deficiency in service by the Ops, as alleged.?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought for.?
5. Our finding on the above points are as under:-
1. In the affirmative.
2. As per final order for the following.
REASONS
POINT NO.1 :-
6. There is no dispute that the complainant is the subscriber of the chit amount for an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- and he has the successful bidder of the chit No. CNTOIJ No.3 for an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/-.
7. In order to prove his case, the complainant has filed Copy of agreement of chit is marked at Ex.P-1. Certificate of BHU ADIPATI SCHEME is marked at Ex.P-2. Office copy of legal notice dt. 07-03-11 and three postal receipts are marked at Ex.P-3 and Ex.P-3(1) to Ex.P-3(3). The Reply notice issued by opposite No-1 is marked at Ex.P-4. Prized subscriber reminder notice dt. 1907-10 marked at Ex.P-5. The ledger extract from 01-02-10 to 05-03-11 is marked at Ex.P-6. Guarantor notice dt. 31-10-10 marked at Ex.P-7. Guarantor notice dt. 31-10-10 marked at Ex.P-8. the legal notice dt. 25-01-11 is marked at Ex.P-9.
The opposites have filed three documents namely: Letter of acceptance of retaining prize money as a BHU ADIPATI SCHEME dt. 02-01-10 marked at Ex. R-1. Letter dt. 02-01-10 by complainant to opposite No-2 is marked at Ex.R-2. The letter dt. 02-01-10 by complainant to the Manager Shilpa Shelters ltd., Bangalore marked at Ex.R-3.
8. From the pleadings of the parties and documents filed by complainant and Respondents following points are arising for our consideration:-
1. Whether the complainant has produced sureties to the opposites as per the terms and conditions of the agreement for to release the amount after he has become a successful bidder of chit No. CNTOLJ/03 dt. 29-08-09 for an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/-.
2. Whether the complainant has given his consent to deposit the bid amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- in BHU ADIPATI SCHEME with the opposite company M/s. Shilpa Shelter Ltd., for a period of 36 months.
The first point is concerned, as per the agreement of chit produced under Ex.P-1, no doubt the complainant has to produce sureties in order to get release the bid amount, otherwise the opposite company has every right to deposit the amount in any of the banks approved under the provisions of Chit Funds Act 1982. It is the case of the opposite that, the complainant has not produced sureties hence the amount was not released in his name. In order to prove this contention the opposites have not produced any documents to show that, the complainant has not produced any sureties after their demand. On the contrary the complainant has produced the surety details under Ex.P-6 wherein four names have been mentioned under the head of Guarantor’s name, they are C.Venugopal, K.Venkatesh Prasad, Veeresh Malipatil and B.S.Srinivas Naik. Further on perusal of the Ex.P-7 & Ex.P-8 i.e, Guarantor notice issued under certificate of postings by the opposite No-1 to the sureties clearly speaks that, there are four sureties stands in favor of the complainant for the chit amount and same was known to the opposite. The said Ex.P-6 to Ex.P-8 are in respect of non payment of the amount by the complainant and same was intimated to the sureties by giving warning to them to make the payment in case the complainant has failed to make the payment of balance of the chit amount. It is worthwhile to note here that, the said Ex.P-6, Ex.P-7 & Ex.P-8 are the documents are the extract of ledger pertaining to the details of chit owned by the complainant and same was issued by the opposite No-1 office. Under such circumstances, the opposite cannot say that the complainant has not furnished any sureties for to get release the bid amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- and for that, the amount has not paid to him. This contention of the opposite clearly goes to show that, it is a false and baseless contention. Hence we have not accepted the same as it is false and baseless.
The second point is concerned, whether the complainant has given his consent to deposit the bid amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- in BHU ADIPATHI SCHEME with the opposite company M/s. Shilpa Shelter Ltd., for a period of 36 months as contended by the opposite. In order to prove this point, the opposite have mainly relied upon the letter of acceptance of retaining prize money as a BHU ADIPATHI SCHEME produced under Ex.R-1, the letter dt. 02-01-10 produced under Ex.R-1 and another one letter dt. 02-01-10 produced under Ex.R-3. But the complainant categorically denied this contention and he also denied all these three exhibits and his signatures of them. Further he has contended that, at no point of time, he has given his consent to deposit the amount under BHU ADIPATHI SCHEME and he has not signed any one of these three documents. Further he has alleged that, the signatures on the said documents are not belongs to him. As per the opposite, the complainant has signed on Ex.R-1, Ex.R-2 & Ex.R-3 and thereby he has given his consent but on perusal of the Ex.P-1 agreement and Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-3 we find lot of difference in the signatures of Ex.P-1 and Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-3 from the naked eye itself, we can say that, the signature under Ex.P-1 is not tallied with the signatures made on Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-3, this fact clearly gives supports to the contention of the complainant that he has not signed on Ex.R1 to Ex.R-3, further it also discloses that, he has not given any consent for to deposit the bid amount in BHU ADIPATHIS SCHEME under such circumstances, the decision of the opposite to deposit the bid amount in BHU ADIPATHIS SCHEME is of their own and without the consent of the complainant. This act of the opposites clearly goes to show that, they have acted against their own terms and conditions and thereby they have committed deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant.
9. Apart from this, we have perused the legal notice issued by the opposite to the complainant and sureties produced under Ex.P-9. In the said notice it is stated that, the complainant has withdrawn the prize money from the opposite. Further, it is also contended in the said notice is that, the sureties were stood as a Guarantor by executing an agreement and promissory note for the future installments of the chit. These contentions of the said legal notice which has been issued by the advocate of the opposite clearly goes to shows that, the complainant has to produce surety for to withdraw the bid amount of Rs. 3,00,000/-. Further, this contention will also goes against the defence of the opposite because the opposite in their written version contended that, the complainant has not produced surety hence amount was not released to him and in turn he has given his consent to deposit the bid amount in BHU ADIPATHI SCHEME, hence on the request of the complainant same has been deposited in the said scheme. Here the contention of opposite in the said legal notice and the written version are quite contrary, from this, it is not very clear that, whether the opposites have deposited the amount in BHU ADIPATHI SCHEME with the consent of the complainant or the same has been released/paid to the complainant under such circumstances, such kind of defence/contention of the opposites will give lot of doubts, such doubtful versions cannot be believed, further these versions are clearly establishes false contention/case of the opposite and it clearly shows that, the opposite in order to justify their mistake, they have contended such a false contention in the written version. Hence this forum cannot believe the defence of the opposites and treated them are all false and baseless. Hence by viewing from any angles, the contentions of the opposites holds no good. The complainant has proved his case against the opposites as there was a deficiency in service on the part of the opposite, under such circumstances, we answered point No-1 in affirmative.
POINT NO.2:-
10. The complainant has sought direction of this forum against the opposite to return the amount of Rs. 62,500/- along with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. and cost of the proceedings of Rs. 15,000/- further compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/-. The complainant has not filed any documents to show that, he has suffered loss with such huge amount as he claimed under the complaint as compensation. Hence, in-view of our fore-going discussions, reasons and finding on Point No-1, coupled with the facts and circumstances of the case, we feel, it just and proper to issue a direction against the opposite party to return the amount of Rs. 62,500/- along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. for the relief of compensation, deficiency in service and cost is concerned, the claim of the complainant is very high and exorbitant one, hence we have granted lumpsum amount of Rs. 10,000/- including cost of litigation, deficiency in service and compensation. In this view of the matter we pass the following order:
ORDER
The complaint of the complainant is allowed in part with cost.
The Ops shall pay compensation of Rs. 72,500/- along with interest at the rate of 9% from the date of complaint till realization of the full amount to the complainant including cost of litigation etc.,
The Ops shall comply this order within (4) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
Office to furnish certified copy of this order to both the parties forth with free of cost.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 23-09-11)
Smt.Pratibha Rani Hiremath, Sri. Gururaj Sri. Pampapathi,
Member. Member. President,
Dist.Forum-Raichur. Dist-Forum-Raichur Dist-Forum-Raichur.
