<br /> By SRI.K VIJAYAKUMARAN, PRESIDENT.<br /> <br /> This complainant is filed this complaint for realization of Rs. 21,750/- towards compensation and costs.<br /> <br /> <br /> The averments in the complaint can be briefly summarized as follows:<br /> <br /> The complainant was subscriber No39 INChitty No.2/2002 conducted by the 2nd opp.party as foreman. The complainant was remitting subscription regularly without any default. A written proxy was also given in the name of the 2nd opp.party to bid the chitty for and on behalf of the complainant. The 2nd opp.party has given assurance that information regarding prizing of the chitty will be given to the complainant as soon as chitty is prized. The complainant is an agriculturist who purchase agricultural items and conducts sale of the same in the market to earn his livelihood. For his business purpose he raised a loan Rs.35,000/- from the local money lenders. agreeing to pay Rs.1,050/- as interest per month. As per letter dated 30.8.2003 the 2nd opp.party informed the complainant that chitty was prized in his name on 16.11.2002. The prizing of chitty in his name was not intimated by the 2nd opp.party to the complainant for which no satisfactory explanation was offered if the prizing of the chitty was informed in time, the complainant could have saved a sum of Rs.10,500/- which he had given as interest for the loan raised by him. The conduct of the 2nd opp.party is gross negligence and deficiency in service. Hence the complaint.<br /> <br /> The opp.parties filed a version contending, interalia, that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The dispute alleged is not a consumer dispute . This Forum lacks jurisdiction to entertain this complaint. It is a contract of personal service and the remedy available to the party is to approach a civil court. It is admitted that the complainant was subscriber No.39 in Chitty No.2/2002 and that the complainant has given proxy to bid the chitty in favour of the 2nd opp.party. The chitty prized in the name of the complainant in the draw held on 16.11.2002. Personal notice in this regard was given to the complainant. This was also published in the notice board of the 2nd opp.party. The contention that the opp.parties never intimated the complainant of the prizing of the chitty is false. The opp.parties have not played any unfair trade practice. There is also no deficiency in service on the part of the opp.party. The complainant is not entitled to get any compensation. Hence the opp.party prays to dismiss the complaint.<br /> <br /> <br /> Points that would arise for consideration are:<br /> <br /> 1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opp.parties<br /> 2. Reliefs and costs.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> For the complainant PW.1 is examined. Ext. P1 to P9 are marked.<br /> <br /> <br /> For the opp.party DW.1 is examined. Ext. D1 and D2 are marked.<br /> <br /> <br /> Points 1 and 2<br /> <br /> There is no dispute that the complainan t was chital No.39 in chitty No.2/02 of the 2nd opp.party and that the complainant has given Ext. D1 proxy in favour of opp.party 2 to bid the kuri for him. The case of the complainant is that though the chitty was prized in his name as early as 16.11.2002 the opp.parties did not inform him of the same till 30.8.2003 as per Ext.P2 which is deficiency in service on the side of the opp.parties.<br /> <br /> According to the opp.parties the complainant was informed of the prizing of the chitty in his name on the same day in person and also by way of a letter in ordinary post even though they are not bound for the same but the complainant did not produce necessary sureties and execute security documents. It is to be noted that the recital in Ext. D1 does not stipulate any duty on the opp.parties to inform the prizing of chitty to the subscriber but it is the duty of the subscriber to enquire about the same. According to the opp.parties there is no practice of giving any intimation regarding the prizing of a chitty to the persons who gave proxy. The learned counsel for the complainant argued that as soon as a chitty is prized the opp.parties used to intimate the subscriber and that Ext.P9 an intimation regarding prizing of another chitty of the complainant with the opp.parties would clearly show that the contention of the opp.parties is not true. Merely because opp.party 2 issued Ext. P9 no such mandatory duty is cast upon the opp.parties as per the proxy. The complainant has no case that Ext. D1 was not executed by him and that he was not aware of the conditions in Ext. D1.<br /> <br /> Now the question is whether there is deficiency in service on the side of the opp.parties or not Ext.P9 is the intimation issued by the opp.parties to the complainant informing the prizing of another chitty ie chitty No.5/2002. in his name. Ext. D2 is the copy of printed intimation regarding remittance of subscription amount of chitties issued to the subscribers.. The complainant has no case that he is not receiving such intimation regarding subscription amount of chitties from the opp.parties. Ext.P2 shows that the complainant is regularly paying monthly subscription for the chitty No.2/2002. Ext. D2 clearly shows that the number of the subscriber to whom chittyNo.2/2002 was prized on the previous month is shown in it.. It cannot be believed that the complainant failed to notice his number in Ext. D2 while looking the monthly premium of his chitties ie 2/2002 and 5/2002 Ext. D2 cannot be said to be a manipulated document. So merely because a separate intimation was not issued it cannot be believed that complainant had no knowledge of the prizing of chitty No.2/2002 in his name on 16.11.2002. Every prudent man on receipt of such intimation would look for the name and number of the person in whose favour the previous months chitty has been prized. Another important aspect to be noticed is that chitty No.5/02 which is another chitty of the complainant with the opp.parties was prized in his name on 19.4.2003 and this fact was intimated to the complainant as per Ext.P9. It is an admitted fact that the amount as per chitty No.5/02 was already received by the complainant. Every prudent man when he get intimation regarding prizing of one of his chitties would enquire about the fate of the other chitty. It cannot be believed by any stretch of imagination that the complainant has not done so. So the contention of the complainant that he got knowledge about the prizing of chitty No.2/02 in his name only on receiving Ext.P2 cannot be swallowed without a pinch of salt. When as per the terms of the proxy the opp.parties have no duty to intimate prizing of a chitty to the subscriber merely because Ext.P9 was issued the complainant cannot contend that non issuance of an intimation regarding prizing of chitty No.2 in his name is a deficiency in service on the side of the opp.party 2. From the evidence adduced by both sides and the circumstances discussed above we are of the view that there is no deficiency in service on the side of the opp.party 2. Point found accordingly.<br /> <br /> <br /> In the result the complaint fails and the same is hereby dismissed. No costs.<br /> <br /> <br /> Dated this the 29th day of August, 2008.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> I N D E X<br /> <br /> List of witnesses for the complainant<br /> PW.1. – Ashokan<br /> <br /> List of documents for the complainant<br /> P1. – True copy of pass book<br /> P2. – Regd. Letter issued by 2nd opp.party<br /> P3. – Advocate notice<br /> P4. – Postal receipt<br /> P5. – Reply notice<br /> P6. – Notice issued to 1st opp.party<br /> P7. – Postal receipt<br /> P8. – Acknowledgement card<br /> P9. – Letter dated 19.4.2003<br /> <br /> List of witnesses for the opp.party<br /> DW.1. – Presenan<br /> <br /> List of documents for the opp.party<br /> D1. – Authorization letter<br /> D2. – chitty intimation letter<br />