SRI. SAJEESH.K.P     : MEMBER

    The  Complainant  has filed this complaint  under Sec.35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 seeking direction against the  OP  to disburse the chit amount of Rs.5,00,000/- with interest @18% per annum and to pay  Rs.40,000/- as compensation for mental agony , stress  loss and  other sufferings to the complainant.

The complainant in brief

       According to complainant, complainant’s father was subscriber of Sree Gokulam Chit and Finance , Sreekandapuram Branch in chit  ticket for the sala value of Rs.5 lakh and the said chit was terminated on 28/6/2020 and  the complainant was the nominee of the above chit.  The complainant  approached 1^st OP to release the  sala value to her  as she was the nominee and she had to close a loan taken from Canara Bank(2^nd OP) of Rs.3 lakhs which was borrowed by complainant’s father.  When the complainant approached  OP to finalize her decision to the 1^st OP, complainant  seen that  bond receipt issued by OP has some corrections and complainant’s mother’s name was included and on enquiry it is  came to know that OP had forged said document to cheat complainant and  complainant informed that she will register police complaint on which OP  requested her  not to do and promised to handover the bond to the complainant.  But surprisingly on 14/8/2020 OP issued notice to complainant that an objection was filed by Mrs.Chandramathi, 2^nd wife of complainant’s father by stating  that she has got the right over the share.  The complainant stated that 1^st OP had no authority to divide the share or settle the dispute.  As per the nominee rule in the chit Fund Act, complainant is entitled to get the benefit.  The acts of OP was illegal and unjustifiable  as they denied to release the accrued amount.  The complainant suffered financial loss and mental agony due to deficiency  of service by the  OPs.  Hence this complaint.

       After filing this  complaint, commission has sent notice to OP and the  OP is appeared before the commission and filed his version accordingly. After that complainant filed  impleading petition to implead 2^nd OP.  Commission has allowed the petition and  issue notice  to proposed  2^nd OP which was duly served.  The 2^nd OP  has not appeared  before the commission and not filed any version .  Hence the commission held that 2^nd OP has  no version and the case proceed against 2^nd  OP as set exparte.

Version of  1^st  OP in brief:

     The 1^st OP denied all the facts stated by complainant  except those specifically admitted.  The OP admitted the subscriptionship of complainant’s father and admits the sala value of chit in OP’s Sreekandapuram branch and admits that complainant is the nominee of the said chit and also admits that OP has no authority to divide the share and settle the dispute.  The OP contended that complainant was the nominee of Chit No.G3H/2165/KDM/02 for sala amount of  Rs.5 lakh but as per the record of  OP, the nominee is entitled to get only Rs.4,74,750/-.  On 2/7/2020, one of the legal heir of complainant’s father raised claim over  1/3^rd  share through legal nominee and hence OP was not in a position to disburse the said amount to complainant until the dispute is settled.  The OP also contended that they intimated complainant to produce succession certificate from the competent court or the joint consent letter of legal heirs of complainant’s father or  an order from Civil Court directing the OP to disburse the claim to complainant.  The 1^st OP is always ready  and willing to perform the duty without any deficiency.  Moreover,1^st OP contended that Smt.Chandramathi who raised the claim of 1/3^rd share on sala amount being  one of the legal heir is a necessary party to the case.

       Due to the rival contentions raised by the OP to the litigation, the commission decided to cast the issues  accordingly.

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service from the side of  OP?
2. Whether there is any  compensation  &  cost to the complainant?

       In order to answer the issues, the commission  called evidence from both parties. The  complainant produced documents which is marked as Exts.A1 to A3.  Ext.A1 is the photocopy of bond receipt issued by 1^st OP.  Ext.A2 is the notice issued by 1^st OP.  Ext.A3 is  the reply notice to Ext.A2 by complainant to 1^st OP. The complainant adduced evidence  through proof  affidavit and examined as PW1.  1^st OP produced documents which were marked as Exts.B1 to B8.  Ext.B1 is the lawyer notice sent by Chandramathi to 1^st OP.  Ext.B2 is the original notice issued by 1^st OP to complainant.  Ext.B3 is the postal receipt, Ext.B4 is the acknowledgment card.  Ext.B5 is the lawyer notice issued by 1^st OP to complainant. Ext.B6 is  acknowledgment card, Ext.B7 is the lawyer notice issued by to 1^st OP to Chandramathi , Ext.B8 is AD card.  1^st OP adduced evidence through proof affidavit  and examined as DW1.  Complainant is not cross examined  DW1

   Let us have a clear glance into the documents and evidences filed before the commission to answer the issues.

Issue No.1&2

     In the light of evidences bought by parties to the complaint before the commission, the Ext.A1 photocopy of bond receipt issued by 1^st OP, it is seen that, complainant’s name striked off  and complainant’s mother’s name was added.  But 1^st OP clearly admitted in his version and proof affidavit as well as Ext.A2 that complainant is the nominee of chit No.G3H/2165/KOM/02 and the sala amount  is Rs.5 lakhs.  Hence  there is no dispute with regard to the nominee to the chit.  According to Exts.A2&B2, it is seen that 1^st OP intimated complainant  about one Mrs.Chandramathi who claimed as one of the legal heirs of deceased, demanded 1/3^rd share of the chit amount.  Moreover, Ext.B1 indicates that Mrs.Chandramathi raised claim 1/3^rd share on chit amount and was intimated to 1t OP on 2/7/2020.  On the  basis of this,  1^st OP  acted upon, is clear.  During the cross examination of complainant by OP, she specifically deposed that Mrs.Chandramathi, was her father’s second wife and also complainant had a brother and they are the legal heirs of deceased Padmanabhan.  The complainant never raised any objection to the credibility of Mrs.Chandramathi being the legal heir of deceased Padmanabhan, who was the father of complainant.  The objection raised regarding disbursement of chit amount.  According to the documents produced by parties, the commission never came upon the deficiency in service practiced by  1^st OP.  The 1^st OP has the obligation to consider.  Ext.B1  and this 1^st OP acted upon.  Moreover, 1^st OP specifically stated that they are ready and willing to disburse the amount as and when complainant produce the competent order of a court or consent letter of party who raised the objection since the 1^st OP and complainant stated that 1^st OP has no authority to  disburse the amount.  Hence the commission came into a conclusion that there is no deficiency in service from the part of 1^st OP since 1^st OP is ready and willing to disburse the chit amount after deducting the tax on the production of competent order from competent  authority which was not fulfilled by complainant.

   Since there is no deficiency in service from the part of 1^st OP and hence complainant is not entitled to get compensation.

        In the result complaint is allowed in part, the 1^st  opposite party  is directed to disburse 1/3^rd of the chit amount of Rs.4,74,750/-  to complainant  ie Rs.1,58,250/- within 30 days of receipt of this order.   The complainant is not entitled to get compensation . In default, Rs.1,58,250/- carries interest@ 12% per annum  from the date of order till realization. Failing which complainant is at liberty to file execution application against 1^st opposite party as per the provisions of Consumer Protection Act 2019.

Exts:

A1- photocopy of bond receipt issued by 1st OP

A2- notice issued by 1st OP. 

A3- reply notice of Ext.A2

B1-lawyer notice

B2 -original notice issued by 1st OP to complainant.

B3-Postal receipt

B4,B6,B8-AD card

B5- lawyer notice issued by 1st OP to complainant

B7-lawyer notice issued by to 1st OP to Chandramathi

PW1-Pournami.I-complainant

DW1-Unnikrishnan.K.V-1^st   OP

Sd/                                                         Sd/                                                     Sd/

PRESIDENT                                             MEMBER                                               MEMBER

Ravi Susha                                       Molykutty Mathew                                    Sajeesh K.P

eva           

                                                                        /Forwarded by Order/

                                                                   ASSISTANT REGISTRAR