Per:  K.V.Krishna Murthy:   

A practicing advocate of this town is the complainant was a subscriber of chit run by the OP Company having branch at Koppal town.  The chit amount was Rs.5,00,000/- payable in 40 installments.  The complainant was a prized subscriber in the auction held in 35^th month.  The discount amount was Rs.32,500/-.  The date of auction was 12-08-2013.  The foreman did not pay the amount.  Therefore the complainant issued a notice (vide Ex.A.2) on 23-9-2013 served on OP on 28-11-2013.  The voucher was prepared on 27-09-2013 at Division Office, Hospet.  According to this voucher, amount payable is as follows;

            Cheque dated: 20-11-2013 was prepared at Wilson Garden Branch, Bangalore for a sum of Rs.3,63,761/-.  The cheque was received by the complainant on 04-12-2013.  This complaint was filed on 01-1-2014 claiming deficiency in service on the part of the OP company contending that on account of delay in making the payment of the prize amount the complainant suffered Rs.1,00,000/-.  The complainant also sought for compensation towards harassment, deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

            2.  Notice of the proceedings served on OP No.1 on 09-1-2014 and on OP No. 2 on 11-01-2014.  Therefore written version ought to have filed within 30 days there from; But not filed.  The advocate for OP filed vakalat in this Forum on 05-2-2014.  On 11-07-2014 written version was filed by the opposite parties.  Since the legislative mandate of giving version of the case within time prescribed u/sec. 13 (2) of the Consumer Protection Act – 1986 has not been followed by the opposite parties, it is not necessary for the Forum to consider their written version.  Suffice to pointout that District Forum has not been empowered to extend the time for filing the written version of the case of the opposite parties beyond 45 days from the date of service of the notice.

            3.  The Manager, Shriram Chits Company Pvt.Ltd., Branch at Koppal by name Mallikarjun has filed affidavit evidence before this Forum on 11-07-2014 disputing the deficiency in service, denying the averments except the fact that the complainant was a prized subscriber of 35^th auction in the chit.  He disputed that the amount was paid on 04-12-2013, but he did not say when exactly the amount was paid.    According to him, the bid amount has to paid after 45 days without basis.

            4.  During course of argument, counsel for the complainant has furnished a blank proforma of chit agreement of Shriram Chits (Karnataka) Pvt.Ltd., wherein condition No.8 reads thus;

             “9) ಫೋರಮನ್ ಕರ್ತವ್ಯಗಳು, ಬಹುಮಾನಿತ ಮೊತ್ತವನ್ನು ಕೊಡುವುದು ಮತ್ತು ಕೊಡುವ ಸ್ಥಳ:

ಬಹುಮಾನದ ಹಣವನ್ನು ಕ್ರಾಸ್ ಮಾಡಿದ ಅಕೌಂಟ್ ಪೇಯಿ ಚೆಕ್ ರೂಪದಲ್ಲಿ ಫೋರಮನ್ ಅವರ ಕಛೇರಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಕೆಲಸದ ವೇಳೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ಮರು ಹರಾಜಿನ ದಿನ ನೀಡಲಾಗುವುದು ಅಥವಾ ಸಂಬಂಧಪಟ್ಟ ವಂತಿಗೆದಾರನು ಪ್ರಾರ್ಥಿಸಿಕೊಂಡರೆ ಅಂಚೆ ಮೂಲಕ ಕಳುಹಿಸಿಲಾಗುವುದು.  x x x x x xx”

            5.  The advocate complainant has cited decision in A.C.Sreedharam V/s M.V.Narayana – CPC (1) 2013 – 434, which states the principles of Chit  Fund Company and Consumers of Service.  He also cited the decision in Branch Manager, Margadarsi Chit Fund Ltd., V/s District Consumers Disputes Redressal Forum – 2004 NCJ 376 for similar purpose.  Another decision in Branch Manager, Keral State Financial Ent.V/s Vijayakumar – 2008 (3) CPR 274 (KSCDRC) has also been cited regarding deficiency in service.

            6.  A chit fund business run by the finance companies must be treated as service u/sec. 2(1)(o) of the Consumer Protection Act – 1986.

7.  As per provisions of Sec. 2(1)(g) of Consumer Protection Act – 19896 – ‘deficiency’ means –

• Any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service;

8.  Section – 3 of the Chit Funds Act – 1982 states –

Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act –

(a) the provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force or in the memorandum or articles of association or bye-laws or in any agreement or resolution whether the same be registered, executed or passed, as the case may be, before or after the commencement of this Act ; and

(b) any provision contained in the memorandum, articles, bye-laws, agreement or resolution aforesaid, shall, to the extent to which it is repugnant to the provisions of this Act, become or be void, as the case may be.

9.  Section – 25 of the Chit Funds Act – 1982 reads thus;

25. Liability of foreman to subscribers :- (1) Every foreman shall be liable to account to the subscribers for the amounts due to them.

(2)  Where there are more than one foreman in a chit, each one of them jointly and severally and, if the foreman is a firm or other association of individuals, each one of the partners or individuals thereof jointly and severally and, if the foreman is a company, the company as such shall be liable to the subscribers in respect of the obligations arising out of the chit.

10.  From the provisions of law aforementioned, there is no difficulty in concluding that the dispute is entertainable by the District Forum.

11.  Section – 22 of the Chit Funds Act – 1982 states –

22.  Duties of foreman :- (1) The foreman shall, on the prized subscriber furnishing sufficient security for the due payment of future subscriptions be bound to pay him the prize amount:

Provided that the prized subscriber shall be entitled to the payment of the prize amount without any security whatsoever if he agrees to the deduction therefrom of the amount of all future subscriptions and in such a case, the foreman shall pay the prize amount to the prized subscriber within seven days after the date of the draw or before the date of the next succeeding installment, whoever is earlier:

Provided further that where the prize amount has been paid to the prized subscriber under the first proviso, the amount deducted shall be deposited by the foreman in an approved bank mentioned in the chit agreement and he shall not withdraw the amount so deposited except for the payment of the future subscriptions.

(2)  If, owing to the default of the prized subscriber, the prize amount due in respect of any draw remains unpaid until the date of the next succeeding installment, the foreman shall deposit the prize amount forthwith in a separate account in an approved bank mentioned in the chit agreement and intimate in writing the fact of such deposit and the reasons therefore to the prized subscriber and the Registrar :

Provided that where any prized subscriber does not collect the prize amount in respect of any installment of a chit within a period of two months from the date of the draw, it shall be open to the foreman to hold another draw in respect of such installment.

(3) Every payment of the prize amount or the amount of future subscriptions under sub-section (1), and the deposit of the prize amount under sub-section (2) shall be intimated to the subscribers at the next succeeding draw and the particulars of such payment or deposit shall be entered in the minutes of the proceedings of that draw.”

12.  A cursory look at Section – 22 cited above, make it clear that the foreman shall pay the prized amount to the prized subscriber within 7 days after the date of draw.  In this particular case, the date of draw was 12-8-2013.  But the company paid the amount to the prized subscriber on 04-12-2013.  Hence there is a delay of 105 days in making the payment to the prized subscriber.  Hence there is a deficiency in service on the part of the foreman because there is inadequacy or shortcoming in the manner of performance which is required to be maintained u/sec. 22(1) of the Chit Funds Act – 1982.

13.  Paragraph – 3, 4 & 5 of affidavit evidence of the complainant dated: 21-03-2014 reads as follows;

“3. ನಾನು ದಿನಾಂಕ: 12-08-2013 ರಂದು 35ನೇ ಕಂತು ರೂ.32,500/- ಕ್ಕೆ ಸವಾಲು ಮಾಡಿರುತ್ತೇನೆ.  ಮತ್ತು ಮುಂದಿನ 5 ಕಂತುಗಳ ತುಂಬುವುದಕ್ಕೆ ಅದರಲ್ಲಿ 1 ಕಂತನ್ನು ನನ್ನ ಚೀಟಿಯ ಹಣವನ್ನು ನೀಡುವಲ್ಲಿ ಮುರಿದುಕೊಂಡು ಮುಂದಿನ 4 ಕಂತುಗಳನ್ನು ತುಂಬುವುದಕ್ಕೆ ಭದ್ರತೆಗಾಗಿ ರೂ.50,000/- ಅದೇ ಚೀಟಿ ಹಣದಲ್ಲಿ ನಿಗದಿತ ಠೇವಣಿಯಾಗಿ 1 ವರ್ಷ ಇಡಲು ಒಪ್ಪಿ ಎದುರುದಾರನ ಕಾಗದ ಪತ್ರಗಳಿಗೆ ಅಂದೇ ಸಹಿಯನ್ನು ಮಾಡಿ ಕೊಟ್ಟಿರುತ್ತೇನೆ.  ಮತ್ತು ಎದುರುದಾರನು ಚೀಟಿಯ ಹನವನ್ನು ನನ್ನ ಬ್ಯಾಂಕಿನ ಉಳಿತಾಯ ಖಾತೆಗೆ 15 ದಿನದಲ್ಲಿ ಹಾಕುತ್ತೇವೆ ಎಂದು ಹೇಳಿ ನನ್ನ ಬ್ಯಾಂಕ್ ಆಫ್ ಇಂಡಿಯಾದ ಪಾಸ್ ಪುಸ್ತಕದ ನಕಲು ಮತ್ತು ಒಂದು ಕ್ಯಾನ್ಸಲ್ ಮಾಡಿದ ಚೆಕ್ ಪ್ರತಿಯನ್ನು ಸಹಃ ಪಡೆದಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ.  ಆದರೆ ಎದುರುದಾರನು ಅನೇಕ ದಿನಗಳಾದರೂ ಚೀಟಿಯ ಹಣವನ್ನು ನನ್ನ ಖಾತೆಗೆ ಜಮಾ ಮಾಡಿರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ.  ಮತ್ತು ನಾನು ಎದುರುದಾರನ ಶಾಖೆಗೆ ಪ್ರತಿದಿನ ಬಂದು ಕೇಳಿದರೂ ಇಂದು ಮತ್ತು ನಾಳೆ ಅನ್ನುತ್ತಾ ಚೀಟಿಯ ಹಣವನ್ನು ನೀಡುವಲ್ಲಿ ಸತಾಯಿಸುತ್ತಾರೆ.  ಮತ್ತು ಫೋನ್ ಮಾಡಿದರೂ ಇದೇ ವಿಷಯವನ್ನು ಹೇಳುತ್ತಿದ್ದರು. 

4.  ನನಗೆ 35ನೇ ಕಂತಿಗೆ ಚೀಟಿ ಸವಾಲಾದ ನಂತರ ನಾನು ಸದರಿ ಹಣವಲದಲಿ ಒಂದು ಪ್ಲಾಟ್ ಖರೀದಿಸುವುದರ ಸಲುವಾಗಿ ಮುಮಗಡವಾಗಿ ರೂ.1,00,000/- ಪಾವತಿ ಮಾಡಿದ್ದು, ಮತ್ತು ಬಾಕಿ ಹಣವನ್ನು ಒಂದು ತಿಂಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ಪಾವತಿ ಮಾಡಿ ಸದರಿ ಪ್ಲಾಟ್‍ನ್ನು ನೋಂದಣಿ ಮಾಡಿಸಿಕೊಳ್ಳುತ್ತೇನೆ ಎಂದು ಕರಾರು ಪತ್ರವಾಗಿದ್ದು (ದಿನಾಂಕ: 30-08-2013) ಮತ್ತು ಸದರಿ ಕರಾರಿನಂತರ ನನಗೆ ಪ್ಲಾಟಿನ ಬಾಕಿ ಹಣ ರೂ.2,50,000/- ನೀಡಲು ವಿಳಂಬವಾಗಿದ್ದು, ಮತ್ತು ಕರಾರು ಮುಗಿದಿರುವುದರಿಂದ ಪ್ಲಾಟಿನ ಮಾಲಿಕನು ಕರಾರಿನಂತೆ ಪ್ಲಾಟನ್ನು ನೋಂದಣಿ ಮಾಡಿಸಿಕೊಡಲು ನಿರಾಕರಿಸಿದನು.  ಇದರಿಂದ ನನಗೆ ರೂ.1,00,000/- ಮುಂಗಡವಾಗಿ ನೀಡಿದ ಹಣ ಮರಳಿ ಬರಲಿಲ್ಲ.  ಮತ್ತು ಕರಾರಿನ ಅವಧಿ ಇರುವ ಸಮಯದಲ್ಲಿಯೇ ನಾನು ಈ ವಿಷಯವಾಗಿ ಎದುರುದಾರನಿಗೆ ದಿನಾಂಕ: 23-09-2013 ರಂದು ಒಂದು ಪತ್ರವನ್ನು ಹಾಕಿದ್ದು, ಅದರಲ್ಲಿ ಚೀಟಿಯ ಹಣವನ್ನು ಬೇಗನೆ ನೀಡಿ ಇಲ್ಲವಾದರೆ ಪ್ಲಾಟಿಗೆ ಮುಂಗಡವಾಗಿ ನೀಡಿದ ಹಣ ರೂ.1,00,000/- ಹಾನಿಯಾದರೆ ಅದಕ್ಕೆ ಎದುರುದಾರನೆ ಹೊಣೆಗಾರನಾಗುತ್ತಾನೆ ಎಂದು ಪತ್ರವನ್ನು ಹಾಕಿದ್ದು, ಸದರಿ ಪತ್ರ ಎದುರುದಾರನಿಗೆ ತಲುಪಿದ್ದು, ಆದರೂ ಸಹಿತ ಅವರು ಚೀಟಿಯ ಹಣವನ್ನು ನಿಗದಿತ ಸಮಯದಲ್ಲಿ ನೀಡಲಿಲ್ಲ.

5.  ಎದುರುದಾರನ ಕಾರ್ಯಾಲಯದ ಸಿಬ್ಬಂದಿ ನನಗೆ ದಿನಾಂಕ: 04-12-2013 ರಂದು ಸಮಯ ಮುಂಜಾನೆ 10:51 ಕ್ಕೆ ಈ ಫೋನ್ ನಂಬರ್ 9686455609 ಇದರಿಂದ ನಿಮ್ಮ ಚೆಕ್ ಬಂದಿದೆ ತೆಗೆದುಕೊಂಡು ಹೋಗಿ ಎಂದು ಹೇಳಿದರು.  ಅದರಂತೆ ನಾನು ಆ ದಿನ ಹೋಗಿ ನನ್ನ ಚೆಕ್ಕನ್ನು ತೆಗೆದುಕೊಂಡೆನು.  ಸದರಿ ಚೆಕ್ಕಿನಲ್ಲಿ ನನ್ನ ಮುಂದಿನ 4 ಕಂತುಗಳ ಹಣ ಮತ್ತು ನಿಗದಿತ ಠೇವಣಿಯ ಹಣ ಮತ್ತು ಇತರ ಹಣ ಮುರಿದು ನನಗೆ ರೂ.3,63,761/- ಮೊತ್ತದ ಚೆಕ್ಕನ್ನು ನೀಡಿದರು.  ಮತ್ತು ಚೀಟಿಯ ಕೊನೆಯ ಕಂತು ದಿನಾಂಕ: 12-01-2014 ಕ್ಕೆ ಕಟ್ಟಬೇಕು ಎಂದು ಹೇಳಿದರು.  ಆದರೂ ಸಹಿತ ನಾನು ಕೊನೆಯ ಕಂತನ್ನು ಅವರು ಹೇಳಿದ ದಿನಾಂಕಿನ ಒಳಗಾಗಿಯೇ ಪಾವತಿ ಮಾಡಿರುತ್ತೇನೆ.  ನಾನು ದಿನಾಂಕ: 04-12-2013 ರಂದು ಚೆಕ್ಕನ್ನು ತಕರಾರಿನೊಂದಿಗೆ ತೆಗೆದುಕೊಂಡು ನನ್ನ ಸಹಿಯನ್ನು ಮಾಡಿರುತ್ತೇನೆ.  ಮತ್ತು ಅದೇ ದಿನ ನನ್ನ ಮೊಬೈಲಿಗೆ ಎಸ್.ಎಮ್.ಎಸ್. ಬಂದಿದ್ದು, ಅದರಲ್ಲಿ ನಾನು ನಿಗದಿತ ಠೇವಣಿ ಹಣ ರೂ.50,000/- ಇಟ್ಟ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಅರ್ಜಿಯ ಸಂಖ್ಯೆ: 1312040001 ಎಂದು ಬಂದಿರುತ್ತದೆ.  ನಂತರ ನನು ಚೀಟಿಯ ಕೊನೆಯ ಕಂತನ್ನು ಪಾವತಿ ಮಾಡಿರುತ್ತೇನೆ.  ಮತ್ತು ಎದುರುದಾರ ಶಾಖೆಯವರು ನನಗೆ ಎನ್.ಡಿ.ಸಿ. ಪತ್ರವನ್ನು ನೀಡಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ.  ಮತ್ತು ನಾನು ಎದುರುದಾರನ ಶಾಖೆಗೆ ನೀಡಿದ ದಾಖಲೆಗಳನ್ನು ಮತ್ತು ಎನ್.ಡಿ.ಸಿ. ಪತ್ರವನ್ನು ಇಂದು ಹಾಜರುಪಡಿಸಿರುತ್ತೇನೆ.”

14.  In the affidavit evidence of the OP filed on 11-07-2014, there is no reference to the facts sworn to the complainant in paragraph – 3, 4 & 5 of the affidavit evidence.

15.  The complainant has furnished an agreement for purchase of site said to have been executed by Pranesh S/o: Virupakshappa Shreshti of Lebageri village in Koppal district in favour of the complainant on 30-8-2013, in which site No.6 was agreed to be sold by the vendor to the complainant for a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- out of which Rs.1,00,000/- received as part of the sale consideration with further stipulation that he will not executed the registered sale deed in default of payment of the balance price within 30 days therefrom.   This agreement has not been signed by the complainant.  This agreement has been executed on stamp worth Rs.6/- only.  This document has been impounded u/sec. 33 of the Karnataka Stamp Act – 1957 (vide order dated: 11-7-2014) and penalty of Rs.2,000/- has been collected by this Forum.

16.  This document, Ex.A5 has been marked in this Forum on 21-03-2014.  IA No. I was filed by the advocate for OP requesting this Forum to impound the document for non-sufficient stamp duty.  The penalty was deposited in this Forum on 31-07-2014.  The affidavit evidence of OP and also written version filed on 11-07-2014.  Nothing has been stated in the written version or in the affidavit evidence regarding contents of Ex.A5, agreement.

17.  In the notice, Ex.A2, dated: 20-09-2013, the complainant has stated as follows;

“ಈ ಕೆಳಗೆ ಸಹಿ ಮಾಡಿದ ನಾನು ಮಂಜುನಾಥ.ವಿ.ಮುದಗಲ್ ವಕೀಲರು, ಕೊಪ್ಪಳ ತಿಳಿಯಪಡಿಸುವುದೇನೆಂದರೆ, ನಾನು ನಿಮ್ಮ ಶಾಖೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ರೂ.5,00,000/- ಮೊತ್ತದ ಚೀಟಿಯನ್ನು ಹಾಕಿದ್ದು, ಅದನ್ನು ಪ್ರತಿ ತಿಂಗಳೂ ಸರಿಯಾದ ರೀತಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಕಂತುಗಳನ್ನು ತುಂಬುತ್ತಾ ಬಂದಿರುತ್ತೇನೆ.

ದಿನಾಂಕ: 12-08-2013 ರಂದು 35ನೇ ಕಂತು ರೂ.32,500/- ಕ್ಕೆ ಸವಾಲು ಮಾಡಿರುತ್ತೇನೆ.  ಮತ್ತು ಮುಂದಿನ 5 ಕಂತುಗಳ ತುಂಬುವುದಕ್ಕೆ ಅದರಲ್ಲಿ 1 ಕಂತನ್ನು ನನ್ನ ಚೀಟಿಯ ಹಣವನ್ನು ನೀಡುವಲ್ಲಿ ಮುರಿದುಕೊಂಡು ಮುಂದಿನ 4 ಕಂತುಗಳನ್ನು ತುಂಬುವದಕ್ಕೆ ಭದ್ರತೆಗಾಗಿ ರೂ.50,000/- ಅದೇ  ಚೀಟಿ ಹಣದಲ್ಲಿ ನಿಗದಿತ ಠೇವಣಿಯಾಗಿ 1 ವರ್ಷ ಇಡಲು ಒಪ್ಪಿ ನಿಮ್ಮ ಕಾಗದ ಪತ್ರಗಳಿಗೆ ಅಂದೇ ಸಹಿಯನ್ನು ಮಾಡಿ ಕೊಟ್ಟಿರುತ್ತೇನೆ ಮತ್ತು ನೀವು ಚೀಟಿಯ ಹಣವನ್ನು ನಮ್ಮ ಬ್ಯಾಂಕಿನ ಉಳಿತಾಯ ಖಾತೆಗೆ ಹಾಕುತ್ತೇವೆ ಎಂದು ಹೇಳಿ ನನ್ನ ಬ್ಯಾಂಕ್ ಆಫ್ ಇಂಡಿಯಾದ ಪಾಸ್ ಪುಸ್ತಕದ ನಕಲು ಮತ್ತು ಒಂದು ಕ್ಯಾನ್ಸಲ್ ಮಾಡಿದ ಚೆಕ್ ಪ್ರತಿಯನ್ನು ಸಹಃ ಪಡೆದಿರುತ್ತೀರಿ.

ಆದರೆ ನೀವು ಇಲ್ಲಿಯವರೆಗೆ ಚೀಟಿಯ ಹಣವನ್ನು ನನ್ನ ಖಾತೆಗೆ ಜಮಾ ಮಾಡಿರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ.  ಮತ್ತು ನಾನು ನಿಮ್ಮ ಶಾಖೆಗೆ ಪ್ರತಿದಿನ ಬಂದು ಕೇಳಿದರೂ ಇಂದು ಮತ್ತು ನಾಳೆ ಅನ್ನುತ್ತಾ ಇಲ್ಲಿಯವರೆಗೂ ಚೀಟಿಯ ಹಣವನ್ನು ನೀಡಿರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ.  ಮತ್ತು ಫೋನ್ ಮಾಡಿದರೂ ಇದೇ ವಿಷಯವನ್ನು ಹೇಳುತ್ತಿರುವಿರಿ.

ನನಗೆ 35ನೇ ಕಂತಿಗೆ ಚೀಟಿ ಸವಾಲದ ನಂತರ ನಾನು ಸದರಿ ಹಣದಲ್ಲಿ ಒಂದು ಪ್ಲಾಟ್ ಖರೀದಿಸುವುದರ ಸಲುವಾಗಿ ಮುಂಗಡವಾಗಿ ರೂ.1,00,000/- ಪಾವತಿ ಮಾಡಿದ್ದು, ಮತ್ತು ಬಾಕಿ ಹಣವನು ಒಂದು ತಿಂಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ಪಾವತಿ ಮಾಡಿ ಸದರಿ ಪ್ಲಾಟ್‍ನ್ನು ನೋಂದಣಿ ಮಾಡಿಸಿಕೊಳ್ಳುತ್ತೆನೆ ಎಂದು ಕರಾರು ಪತ್ರವಾಗಿದ್ದು, ಈಗ ಕರಾರಿನ ಅವಧಿ ಮುಗಿದು ನಾನು ತೊಂದರೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ಸಿಲುಕಿರುತ್ತೇನೆ.

ಆದ್ದರಿಂದ ಈ ಪತ್ರ ತಲುಪಿದ ದಿನವೇ ನನ್ನ ಚೀಟಿಯ ಹಣವನ್ನು ಬ್ಯಾಂಕ್ ಖಾತೆಗೆ ಜಮಾ ಮಾಡಬೇಕು.  ಇಲ್ಲವಾದಲ್ಲಿ ನನಗೆ ಆಗುವ ಹಾನಿಗೆ ನೀವೇ ಜವಾಬ್ದಾರರು ಆಗುತ್ತೀರಿ ಎಂದು ತಿಳಿಯಪಡಿಸುತ್ತೇನೆ.

18.  Even after receipt of this notice, the company delayed the payment of the prized amount to the prized subscriber and unnecessarily harassed the complainant.

19.  The subscriber in a chit transaction bids the amount for a discount for his necessity.  The OP company has not undertaken any service in relation to agreement for sale as per Ex.A5.  The company has no notice of agreement of sale Ex.A.5.  The notice, Ex.A2 was served on 28-11-2013 and the notice makes it clear that the period stipulated for agreement of sale already expired.

20.  Although every breach of duty arising out of contract gives right of action for damages on proof of actual damages, the amount of damages recoverable is as a general rule government by extent of actual damages sustained in consequences of the act of the person who committed breach of contract in view of Section 73 & 74 of the Indian Contract Act – 1872.  As such we cannot accept the contention of the complainant that he suffered loss of Rs.1,00,000/- for non performance of his part of contract.  The amount of Rs.1,00,000/- said to have been paid under Ex.A.5 on 30-08-2013 could not be forfeited by the vendor as this payment has made only towards part of the payment for consideration and not intended as earnest money.  There is also no proof of the fact that the vendor has forfeited the part sale consideration paid.  There is also no proof of the fact that the complainant has offered to pay the balance sale price and purchase the site after receiving the prize amount from the OP company in December – 2013.

20.  However, there exists a degree of probability that the complainant would have taken an opportunity and utilize the money which the OP Company omitted to pay within period stipulated u/sec. 22 of the Chit Funds Act – 1982.    As such there has undoubtedly been an infringement of right of the complainant although no actual damages proved.  Thus the complainant will be entitle to damages for the degree of probability of the fact of this peculiar case considering the chance of circumstances.  As such the complainant shall be entitle for the punitive damages for the deficiency in service on the part of the OP company.

21.  Here in this case, auction was conducted on 12-08-2013.  The money ought to have paid to the prized subscriber on or before 19-08-2013.  But the OP company paid the amount on 04-12-2013.   The complainant has complied-with the conditions of the scheme as stated in paragraph – 3 of the affidavit evidence.  No dispute in this regard.   Taking into totality of the consequences of the case, punitive damages of Rs.25,000/- is awarded, which is equivalent to the foreman commission amount deducted from the prized amount u/sec. 14 (1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act – 1986.

22.  In case of Dr. Balaram Prasad & another V/s Dr.Kunal Saha & Others – 2014 (1) CCC 1 (NS), the Supreme Court observed as follows;

“100. A perusal of the operative portion of the impugned judgment of the National Commission shows that it has awarded interest at the rate of 12% per annum but only in case of default by the doctors of AMRI Hospital to pay the compensation within 8 weeks after the judgment was delivered on October 21, 2011.  Therefore, in other words, the National Commission did not grant any interest for the long period of 15 years as the case was pending before the national Commission and this Court.  Therefore, the National Commission has committed error in not awarding interest on the compensation awarded by it and the same is opposed to various decisions of this Court, such as in the case of Thazhathe Purayil Sarabi & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Anr. regarding payment this Court held as under:

“25.  It is, therefore, clear that the court, while making a decree for payment of money is entitled to grant interest at the current rate of interest of contractual rate as it deems reasonable to be paid on the principal sum adjudged to be payable and/or awarded, from the date of claim or from the date of the order or decree for recovery of the outstanding dues.  There is also hardly any room for doubt that interest may be claimed on any amount decreed or awarded for the period during which the money was due and yet remained unpaid to the claimants.

26.  The courts are consistent in their view that normally when a money decree is passed, it is most essential that interest be granted for the period during which the money was due, but could not be utilized by the person in whose favour an order of recovery of money was passed.

27.  As has been frequently explained by this Court and various High Courts, interest is essentially a compensation payable on account of denial of the right to utilize the money due, which has been, in fact, utilized by the person withholding the same.  Accordingly, payment of interest follows as a matter of course when a money decree is passed.

28. The only question to be decided is since when is such interest payable on such a decree.  Though, there are two divergent views, one indicating that interest is payable from the date when claim for the principal sum is made, namely, the date of institution of the proceedings in the recovery of the amount, the other view is that such interest is payable only when a determination is made and order is passed for recovery of the dues.  However, the more consistent view has been the former and in rare cases interest has been awarded for periods even prior to the institution of proceedings for recovery of the dues, where the same is provided for by the terms of the agreement entered into between the parties or where the same is permissible by statute.”

Following the above decision of the Supreme Court, interest at 10% p.a. is awarded on Rs.25,000/- from the date of complaint till actual payment to the complainant.

23.  For the reasons stated above, this Forum directs the OP company to pay sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty-five thousand only) with interest at 10% p.a. from the date of complaint till actual payment to the complainant either by way of demand draft of cheque.  Payment to be reported to this Forum before the end of the present calendar year.

Complaint Partly Allowed.

// ANNEXURE //

List of Documents Exhibited for the Complainant.

Witnesses examined for the Complainant / Respondent.