O  R  D  E  R

(By Sri A. Radha Krishna, President on behalf of the Bench)

1.         Complaining deficiency of service the complainant sought payment of bid amount Rs. 47,500/- and also sum of Rs. 10,000/- for deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.

2.         The allegations in the complaint in brief are that the complainant was a member of chit bearing No. LT0176 SM/24 for 50 months for amount of Rs. 50,000/-.  The said chit was completed by July, 2013.  In the auction held on 23.06.2013 the said chit was confirmed in favour of the complainant for Rs. 47,500/- and he paid 50^th instalment by 16.07.2013.  But opposite party did not choose to pay the bid amount even though the said chit was completed.  Hence he issued lawyers notice to pay bid amount without insisting him for production of sureties.  Having received the notice they did not comply with the demand nor issued any reply.  Hence the complainant filed the present complaint.

3          The 1^st opposite party filed its written version adopted by 2^nd opposite party denying the material allegations in the complaint and further according to them the dispute between complainant and opposite parties is purely covered by Chit Fund Act.  He can never be deemed to be consumer.  It is also their case the complainant is a member of the chit fund with ticket No. 24 for value of Rs. 50,000/-.  He did not take part in the auction in the respective said series till 23.06.2013.  He also stood as guarantor for one Guvvala Chandu who was a member of 1^st opposite party for the series LT1C SM holding ticket No. 49 and value of the chit was Rs.15,00,000/-.  He was successful bidder in the auction conducted on 23.05.2010 having agree to forego Rs. 4,90,000/-.  The complainant here in stood as one of the guarantors.  Basing on such guarantee they released price amount to the said Guvvala Chandu.  The said Guvvala Chandu failed to subscribe for future instalment as a result they filed OS 814/12 on the file of the III^rd Addl. Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Kakinada for recover of the amount against the said Guvvala Chandu and his guarantors including the complainant here in.

4          While matters stood thus the complainant herein participated in the auction in the present chit and became successful bidder having agreed to forego Rs.2500/- and the price amount came to be Rs. 47,500/-.  As the complainant is one of the guarantors for Guvvala Chandu and the suit against them is pending before the III^rd Addl. Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Kakinada, the 1^st opposite party had to but appropriate the price amount of the complainant towards partial discharge of his liability under the above said chit held by Guvvala chandu.  Part Satisfaction memo was filed therein which was recorded by the III^rd Addl. Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Kakinada.  The said appropriation was done as per the provision of guarantee agreement executed by the complainant.  For the notice issued by the complainant they issued reply with correct facts.  Thus they sought dismissal of the complaint.

5          Now the points for determination are:

1. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties in not paying the bid amount?
2. If so, whether the complainant is entitled for the amounts as sought by him?
3. To what relief?

6. Point No.1:           To buttress his contention the complainant furnished his chief affidavit and exhibited 3 documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A3 which are chit fund passbook with all entries and receipts, letter send by 1^st opposite party to complainant and office copy of lawyer’s notice issued by the complainant to the opposite parties.

7          As against this evidence the Foreman of the opposite party filed his proof affidavit reiterating the allegations in their written version and exhibited as many as 6 documents Ex.B1 to Ex.B6 which are certified copy of agreement of guarantee executed by the complainant, part satisfaction memo filed on behalf of the opposite parties in OS 814/12 on the file of III Addl. Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Kakinada, office copy of reply notice issued by the opposite parties to the complainant notice, Courtier receipt and statement of accounts of the complainant and Guvvala Chandu.

8          Now from the above material it is to be culled out whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties.

9          The version of the opposite parties that the complainant stood as guarantor for the chit amount bid by one Guvvala Chandu and on his committing default opposite party filing suit against the said Chandu and guarantors, including the present complainant is not disputed by the complainant.  Even the documents exhibited on behalf of the opposite parties would indicate that the present complainant stood as one of the guarantors for the chit amount bid by one Guvvala Chandu.  Though the opposite parties issued reply notice putting forth their version the complainant did not allege anything about the reply notice issued by opposite parties in his complaint.  It is the specific contention of the opposite parties that as the said Chandu committed default in payment of instalment they filed the suit and the bid amount of the complainant in his chit was appropriated towards part satisfaction the liability of the said Chandu.  For the said appropriation the opposite parties bank on the guarantee agreement executed by the present complainant along with other guarantors and it is marked as Ex.B1 in this case.  Clause 6 of the guarantee agreement would indicate that the guarantors agree that the company shall be entitled to recover all of its dues from the guarantors person or property upon default in payment by the successful bidder and take any legal action in respect of any amount retained y the successful bidder or the guarantors.  Clause 9 of the said guarantee deed shows so long as any money remains owing under this guarantee the company shall have a lien in all amounts standing to the credit of the guarantors with the company and the company has the right to set off such credits towards the liabilities of the guarantors to the company.

10        The complainant has not challenged the correctness of the terms of the guarantee deed executed by him along with the other guarantors under original of Ex.B1.  Thus the opposite parties are well within their right to exercise the right of lien over the amount of the complainant in his chit amount.

11        In this regard the learned counsel for complainant filed two xerox copies of orders in CC 603/03 on the file of District forum – I, Visakhapatnam and CC 43/14 on the file of District Forum Koppal Karnataka State which is incomplete one.  Even these copies are not authenticated, net copies and the facts in the case on the hand are also deferred from the facts of those case.  Hence under these circumstances it is manifest there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties in not paying the bid amount of the complainant.  Hence this point is answered against the complainant.

12        Point No.2:   In view of the finding rendered under point No.1 the complainant is not entitled for any amount. 

13        In the result, the complaint is dismissed in the circumstances without costs.

            Dictation by the Steno, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us, in open Forum, this the 11^th day of March, 2015

Sd/- xxxx                                                                                                          Sd/- xxxxxxx

MEMBER                                                                                                             PRESIDENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For complainant : 

Sri A. Venkata Chalapathi Rao, [complainant]

For opposite parties : 

Sri L. Bhaskara Rao, Foreman, Margadarsi Chit Fund Pvt. Ltd.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For complainant:-

Ex.A1                                     Chit Fund Passbook with all entries and receipts

Ex.A2                         Letter issued by 1^st opposite party to complainant

Ex.A3                         Office copy of lawyer’s notice issued by the complainant to the opposite parties.

For opposite parties:        

Ex.B1                         Certified copy of agreement of guarantee executed by the complainant

Ex.B2                         Part satisfaction memo filed on behalf of the opposite parties in OS 814/12 on the file of III Addl. Senior Civil Judge’s Court,                                      Kakinada

Ex.B3                         Office copy of reply notice issued by the opposite parties to the complainant notice Ex.B4 Courtier receipt

Ex.B5                         Statement of accounts of the complainant and Guvvala Chandu

Ex.B6                         Statement of accounts of the complainant and Guvvala Chandu

Sd/- xxxx                                                                                                          Sd/- xxxxxxx

MEMBER                                                                                                         PRESIDENT