Date of filing : 05-01-2012
Date of Disposal: 03-10-2012
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ANANTAPUR.
PRESENT: - Sri T.Sundara Ramaiah, B.Com., B.L., President (FAC)
Sri S.Niranjan Babu, B.A., B.L.,Male Member
Smt. M.Sreelatha, B.A., B.L., Lady Member
Wednesday, the 3rd day of October, 2012
C.C.NO. 02/2012
Between:
A.Ramesh Babu
S/o A.Venkataiah
D.No.12-5-1-1,
Lakshminarasiah Colony
SBI Colony, Housing Board Extension
Anantapur. …. Complainant
Vs.
1. The Branch Manager,
Margadarsi Chit Fund (P) Ltd.,
# 15/132, SLV Complex,
Subash Road
Anantapur.
2. Margadarsi Chit Fund (P) Ltd., by its
Managing Director, Corporate Office,
5-10-195, Fatehmaidan Road
Hyderabad. . ….. Opposite parties
This case coming on this day for final hearing before us in the presence of Sri M.Ravichandra Rao and Sri D.Shyam Sundar, advocates for the complainant and SriB.Rajasekhar, advocate for the opposite parties 1 & 2 and after perusing the material papers on record and after hearing the arguments of both sides, the Forum delivered the following:
O R D E R
Sri S.Niranjan Babu, Male Member: - This complaint has been filed by the complainant under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite parties 1 & 2 claiming a sum of Rs.52,000/- as interest on the chit amount of Rs.6,89,000/- and Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and deficiency of service and Rs.1,000/- towards costs of the complaint.
2. The brief facts of the complaint are that :- The complainant is a subscriber in the opposite parties chit group in series LT12XAP for a sum of Rs.10.00 lakhs chit amount. The monthly installment is Rs.20,000/- per month and the duration is for 50 months. On every month of 25th the chit was being conducted and the complainant was a successful bidder on the chit conducted on 25-09-2011. The bid amount was Rs.3,11,000/-. As per the chit agreement clause VII, the complainant furnished 3 salaried persons sureties in the 1st week of October, 2011. After taking the above 3 sureties the opposite party No.1 asked another additional surety, hence the complainant furnished another additional surety also. All the four sureties were drawing net salary of Rs.38,000/- and above. The opposite party No.1 accepted the above sureties and taken their signatures and completed all legal formalities. The main object of lifting the chit is to construct a house and he furnished the necessary sureties by the 2nd week of October, 2011 and completed his job of furnishing security for the due payment of future installments. As per clause VII of chit agreement the prized amount will be paid to the subscriber at the Foreman’s office during office hours by way of account payee Cheque within one month from the date of furnishing necessary sureties. But the opposite party No.1 though contacted by the complainant postponed the payment of the chit amount on one pretext or the other. Fed up with the attitude of the opposite parties, the complainant contacted the Head Office about the abnormal delay in disbursing the prized chit amount but there was no proper response for the same. Subsequently the complainant gave a legal notice dt.29-11-2011. The opposite party No.2 gave a reply notice denying the allegations made by the complainant. As there was delay in payment of the prized chit amount, the complainant filed this complaint as there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties.
4. The 1st opposite party filed his counter stating that all the allegations made in the complaint are false and invented for the purpose of filing this complaint. The allegations made in the complaint by the complainant are true up-to the fact that he was the prized bidder of the chit of Rs.10.00 lakhs, which was auctioned on 25-09-2011 for a sum of Rs.3,11,000/-. It is also true that the complainant furnished 3 salaried persons sureties in the 1st week of October, 2011.The opposite party No.1 submits that the complainant has furnished sureties of 3 persons on 07-10-2011 drawing a net salary of Rs.26,000/- to Rs.36,000/-. After receiving the said sureties the Corporate Office returned the sureties on the ground that the sureties furnished were not sufficient as the future liability is very high and requested to furnish one more surety by the complainant and the same fact has been intimated to the complainant by the 1st opposite party through a letter dt.14-10-2011. Again on 23-10-2011 the complainant produced one more surety as requested by the Head Office. The 4th surety’s income furnished by the complainant was not sufficient, hence requested the complainant to submit sufficient surety for which the complainant expressed his inability and agreed to submit the property evidence of one of the surety submitted, the evidence of the property of the guarantor on 28-10-2011. The four sureties furnished by the complainant are residing at four different places. Hence the opposite party took time in verifying the four sureties’ financial status and antecedents of the sureties by visiting their places in order to take consent from the said sureties. Accordingly the verification officer has completed his job of verification and submitted his report alongwith surety forms and the same was sent to the Head Office on 28-11-2011. The same fact was also intimated to the complainant through a letter dt.28-10-2011. Hence, there is no negligence on the part of the opposite parties and there is no delay in furnishing the payment of chit amount. Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
5. The 2nd opposite party filed a memo adopting the counter filed on behalf of the opposite party No.1.
6. Basing on the above pleadings, the points that arise for consideration are:-
1. Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties 1 & 2 ?
2. To what relief?
7. To prove the case of the complainant, the evidence on affidavit of the complainant has been filed and marked Exs.A1 to A3 documents. On behalf of the opposite parties, evidence on affidavit of the 1stopposite party and evidence on affidavit of the 2nd opposite party have been filed and marked Ex.B1 to B3 documents.
8. Heard both sides.
9. POINT NO.1 - It is an admitted fact that the complainant is a subscriber in the chit group of opposite parties in series LT12XAP for Rs.10.00 lakhs and there is no dispute with regard to the successful bidder also. The chit was conducted on 25-09-2011 and the complainant is a successful bidder for a sum of Rs.3,11,000/- and as per the chit agreement clause VII, the complainant furnished 3 salaried persons sureties in the 1st week of October, 2011 after verifying the above sureties, the opposite party No.1 requested to furnish one more additional surety in order to process the claim. As per their request the complainant furnished another additional surety also. The opposite party No.1 was not satisfied with the 4th additional surety and intimated the same to the complainant. But the complainant requested the opposite party to accept the property evidence produced by the 4th guarantor. The four sureties furnished by the complainant were residing at four different places i.e. 1st surety is resident of Puttaparthy, 2ndsurety is resident of Guntakal, 3rd surety is resident of Thoranagal, Bellary and 4th surety is resident of Simhadripuram, Kadapa District. After receiving the surety forms, the opposite party has sent the surety forms and other related papers for verification to Bellary Branch to verify financial status and antecedents of the sureties of the complainant. After completion of verification by the Bellary Branch, a person was deputed to verify at other 3 places and to take consent from the said sureties. This process of verifying the sureties was over by 28-11-2011 and the same was informed to the complainant through a letter.
10. As per clause VII of the chit agreement, it is clearly mentioned that if the sureties produced by the bidder are satisfied by the Head Office then only the payment will be made. For this process the opposite parties have taken one month time as mentioned in the clause VII of chit agreement. Hence, there is no delay on the part of the opposite parties 1 & 2 as complained by the complainant and the delay is only due to verification process as four sureties were from four different places. Hence we are of the view that there is no delay in disbursing the prized amount as complained by the complainant and there is no negligence on the part of the opposite parties 1 & 2.
11. POINT NO.2 - In the result the complaint is dismissed without costs.
Dictated to the Steno, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in open Forum, this the 3rd day of October, 2012.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MALE MEMBER LADY MEMBER PRESIDENT (FAC)
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM
ANANTAPUR ANANTAPUR ANANTAPUR
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT: ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOISITE PARTIES
-NIL- -NIL-
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT
Ex.A1 – Photo copy of Chit Agreement executed between the complainant and 1st opposite
party dt.10.10.2010.
Ex.A2 - Office copy of legal notice dt.29-11-2012 got issued by the complainant to the opposite
parties 1 & 2.
Ex.A3 - Reply notice got issued by the opposite parties to the counsel for the complainant.
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES
Ex.B1 – Office copy of letter dt.28-10-2011 issued by the 1st opposite party to the complainant.
Ex.B2 – Postal acknowledgement signed by the complainant.
Ex.B3 – Authorization letter issued by the 2nd opposite party in favour of Sri J.Srinivas to file the
suits , vakalats etc.,
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MALE MEMBER LADY MEMBER PRESIDENT (FAC)
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM
ANANTAPUR ANANTAPUR ANANTAPUR
