Per Sri A. Hazarath Rao,  President:-

        The complainant filed this complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act seeking Rs.70,000/- value of chit amount and Rs.30,000/- as damages for mental agony besides costs.

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

        The complainant is a member of the chit bearing No.FPDT10F28 maintained by the opposite party.  Value of the said chit was Rs.1,00,000/- spread over for 50 months @Rs.2,000/-.   The complainant paid 24 installments regularly.  On 21-04-12 the complainant participated in the auction and became a prized subscriber for Rs.70,000/-.   The complainant produced necessary documents with sureties within the stipulated time as required by the opposite party.   On several occasions the complainant demanded the opposite party to pay the bid amount. The complainant on 02-07-12 got issued a notice to the opposite party requiring him to pay Rs.70,000/-.   The opposite party though received notice kept quite.   Not paying the bid amount to the complainant by the opposite party in time amounted to deficiency of service.   The complainant suffered a lot mentally and financially on account of such attitude of the opposite party.   The complainant estimated the same at Rs.30,000/-.  The complaint therefore be allowed.   

3.  The contention of the opposite party in nutshell is hereunder:

          The complainant is not regular in payment of installment amounts.  As per the terms of agreement the bidder has to submit three sureties who are permanent, local and Government servants with photo identity cards, computerized pay slips/salary certificates with the attestation of disbursing officer.   On submission of sureties to the satisfaction of foreman the amount will be released within one month from the date of submission.                           The complainant submitted two sureties namely Valluri Chittibabu s/o Prasad working at G Muppalla, Sirikonda Saidulu working at Sattenapalli.  Both the above sureties though Government employees are non local.   The foreman of the opposite party objected for the above sureties as it was against the provisions of chit agreement.  The complainant then represented that she was unable to produce local sureties.   The foreman thereafter insisted for 3^rd surety. The complainant produced the surety of her husband (retired Government employee) as unable to produce surety of local Government employee.   The foreman received those sureties on 21-05-12 and informed the complainant that it would take time for personal verification of sureties as they were non local.   The said Chittibabu made himself available for personal verification on 27-05-12 and another surety Saidulu on 03-06-12.   The file was submitted to the AGM, Vijayawada and it was returned on               07-05-12 with certain objections and subsequently the signature of                      2^nd surety without designation stamp was obtained and it was submitted to the AGM office of Vijayawada.  On verification it was found that the above persons stood as sureties to one Suneetha Punuri in Group code ticket No.FPDT03J-25 who committed default in payment of installments of May, June and July, 2012.    The foreman of the opposite party informed the complainant that unless the sureties take steps to clear the dues of the defaulted subscriber namely Suneetha Punuri their sureties cannot be accepted and the amount cannot be released.   Thereafter the above sureties took steps and the amount of Suneetha Punuri was paid on 02-07-12 with a promise to pay the remaining amount in the same month.  Thereafter the opposite party prepared the cheque on 11-07-12 and offered in person to the complainant.   The complainant took time to receive the cheque and finally refused to receive the same.   The opposite party sent the cheque on                     20-07-12 to the complainant by post.   The complainant returned the cheque with a covering letter dated 21-07-12.   The delay in releasing the amount was on account of the complainant not producing proper sureties in time.   The opposite party did not commit any deficiency of service.   The complaint therefore be dismissed.

4.  Exs.A-1 to A-16 on behalf of the complainant and Exs.B-1 to B-9 on behalf of opposite party were marked.

5.  Now the points that arose for consideration in this complaint are :

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

6.   Admitted facts in this case are these:

          a.  The complainant was a subscriber of the chit bearing

                No.FPDT10F28 (Exs.A-1 to A-14 and B-1).

        b.  The complainant became a prized subscriber in the auction                   held during 25^th installment.

        c. The complainant produced the sureties namely Valluri                           Chittibabu and Sirikonda Saidulu besides her husband.

         d. The complainant got issued notice to the opposite party on                   02-07-12 and the opposite party received it on 06-07-12                        (Exs.A-15 and A-16).

        e.  The opposite party sent the cheque (Ex.B-8) by post                            to the complainant.

        f.  The complainant returned the said cheque with a covering                     letter on 21-07-12 (Ex.B-9).

7.   POINTS 1&2:-    The contention of the opposite party is that the delay, if any, was on account of the complainant not producing proper sureties.   Ex.B-1 is copy of chit agreement dated 02-03-10 in between the complainant and the opposite party.   The terms of Ex.B-1 chit agreement are binding on both the parties.  Clause VII (1)(a) of Ex.B-1 says that the prize amount will be paid to the prized subscriber at the foreman’s office during officer hours on working days through a crossed account payee cheque and it will be done within one month of prized subscriber furnishing documentary evidence proving source of income to pay future installments in time and also furnishing three permanent local Government servants as sureties for due payment of future installments and the security on inspection/scrutiny is found to the satisfaction of the foreman.  

8.     Exs.B-2 and B-3 revealed that the complainant along with sureties executed a demand promissory note for Rs.50,000/-.   The sureties also executed a guarantee agreement on 03-06-12 in favour of the opposite party.   Valluri Chittibabu and Sirikonda Saidulu stood as sureties to one Suneetha Punuri as seen from Ex.B-7.   Ex.B-6 is the ledger extract pertaining to Suneetha Punuri and it revealed that Punuri Suneetha was not regular in paying the installments of February-2012, May-12 and June-12.  The said Suneetha paid the installments amount with penalty on 02-07-12.  The foreman of opposite party has got discretion to verify the sureties furnished by a subscriber.  As per Ex.B-1 agreement the opposite party can pay the prized amount within one month after furnishing the sureties.  Clause VII (11) of Ex.B-1 says that surety once offered and accepted will not be entertained again as surety for another chit holder till the liability of the previous chit holder is cleared and this may be waived at the discretion of the management. It is already observed that Valluri Chittibabu and Sirikonda Saidulu stood as sureties to one Suneetha Punuri earlier to the complainant.  The opposite party has to release the bid amount on or before 02-07-12.  

9.     The opposite party though prepared the cheque on 11-07-12 sent to the complainant by post on 20-07-12.  The version and affidavit of opposite party revealed that there was delay in preparing the cheque.   Clause VII (4) of Ex.B-1 says that the opposite party has to deposit the amount in an approved bank in case the prized subscriber or his nominee fails to furnish security before the next succeeding auction date.  The complainant returned the cheque under Ex.B-9 to the opposite party on 21-07-12.   The delay in sending the cheque by the opposite party to the complainant was 20 days after producing the sureties.    The contention of the opposite party that it accepted the sureties of Valluri Chittibabu and Sirikonda Saidulu after the subscriber Suneetha Punuri clearing her dues is having considerable force.  When it was done on 02-07-12 the opposite party can prepare the cheque immediately and send it.   But that was not done by the opposite party immediately till 20-07-12.   In our considered opinion it amounted a minor lapse and the same can be compensation by awarding interest @12% p.a.

10.   The complainant also can be found fault for returning the cheque under Ex.B-9 for the delay.   Under those circumstances directing the opposite party to pay the cheque amount of Rs.71,732/- and interest on it @12% p.a., from 05-07-12 to 20-07-12 will meet ends of justice.   We therefore answer these points accordingly. 

11.  POINT No.3:-   In view of above findings, in the result the complaint is partly allowed as indicated below:

1. The opposite party is directed to pay the amount of Rs.71,732/- (Rupees seventy one thousand seven hundred and thirty two only) within a week from the date of receipt of this order under acknowledgment.
2. The opposite party is directed to pay interest @12% p.a, from 04-07-12 to 20-07-12 on Rs.71,732/-.
3. Both parties are directed to bear their own costs.

          Typed to my dictation by Junior Stenographer, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum dated this the 19^th  of December, 2012.

          MEMBER                                                            PRESIDENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Complainant  :

For Opposite Party  :

                                                                                                                                                                                                                 PRESIDENT