CC No.1329/2017                                          Date of filing:29.05.2017

                                                                    Date of Disposal:01.01.2020

BEFORE THE III ADDITIONAL BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

                                     BENGALURU– 560 027.                                    

DATED THIS THE  1^ST    DAY OF JANUARY    2020

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.1329/2017

PRESENT:

Sri    Venkatasudarshan  D.R.  B.Com,LL.M.,              …. President

Smt  L.Mamatha, B.A., (Law), LL.B.                              ….    MEMBER

COMPLAINANT:

Shashidhar .N,

42 years, No.848, A-17,

BDA 2^nd stage, Austin town,

Bangalore-560047.

( Complainant – In person)          

 V/s

OPPONENT:

Thiripura Chits Private Limited,

Office:93/1, Gobind towers,

2^nd floor, Singasandra, Hosur

Main road, New car Koodlal

Gate, Bangalore-560068.

( Opponent By Sri. S. Jayaguru Prakash Advocate)  

 = = = = = = = = = = = = =                               

Written by Sri Venkatasudarshan D.R., President

              ******

           // ORDER//

1. This is a complaint filed by the complainant Sri. Shashidhar .N against  Thiripura Chits Private Limited, Bangalore praying this Forum to give direction to the opposite party to refund a sum of Rs.25,000/- together with cost.

2. The brief facts of the case of the complainant as per the complaint (handwritten)  is that the complainant had become a member of the opposite party chit company on 03.12.2014 by paying Rs.750/-.  He also subscribed for a chit and paid Rs.25,000/- being the chit amount.  Thereafter he could not continue to pay the monthly subscription towards the chit, so he requested the opposite party to return the amount but the opposite party refused to return the same.  Though the complainant was repeatedly requesting to return the same, there was no response by the opposite party he also written a letter to the opposite party renewing the said request.  Even then he did not get neither reply nor the amount.  Hence, this complaint. 

3. There is only one opposite party in this case.  After admitting the complaint the notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite party.  The opposite party entered appearance through an advocate and filed version.

4.  In the version it is contended that the complaint is barred by limitation.  It is denied that the complainant had requested the opposite party to refund the amount 3 months after making first subscription.  It is also denied that the opposite party has written a letter.  It is contended that the opposite party company being registered under law by registrar of chits, all transaction are being carried on accordance with the procedure.  It is further contended that before any person choose to become a subscriber for the chit, the opposite party would explain to him all the terms and conditions.  It is only when those terms and conditions are accepted such person will be registered as a member and his signature would be taken to the agreement.

5. It is also further stated by the opposite party that the  complainant has subscribed for a chit of Rs.5,00,000/- and paid a sum of Rs.25,000/- only being the first installment that the chit for the period of 20 months.  The complainant did not make any payment for the remaining 19 months.  As per the condition the first subscription that the 1^st subscription made  would be towards foreman commission which is 5% of the total value.  It is stated that the same thing  is noted in the pass book also.  So the said amount is not refundable to the complainant.  It is stated that the first contribution towards the chit itself is the profit for the company.  The said amount would be utilized for the salary of the staff and for administration expenses.  The complainant is aware of all these things.  Still he has come up with this complaint with the malafide intention.  Hence, prays for dismissing the complaint.

6. When the case was set down for recording evidence.  The complainant has filed his affidavit evidence.  In spite of granting sufficient opportunity the opposite parties fail to file affidavit evidence or lead any other evidence.  Hence, the case was posted for hearing arguments.  Despite granting sufficient opportunities none have appeared to submit the arguments.  Hence, the case is posted for orders.

7.      The points that arise for our determination are:-

(1) Whether the complainant proves that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opponent?

(2) Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought in the complaint?

8.    Our findings on the above points are:-

Point No.1:- In the affirmative.

Point No.2:- Partly in the affirmative.

Point No.3:- As per the final order for the following.

9.   POINT NO.1:-     In this case the opposite party is not disputing that the complainant was the member of the chit fund organized by the opposite party company by paying Rs.750/- towards registration charges.  It is also not in dispute that the complainant had subscribed for a chit carrying the value of Rs.5,00,000/- in which there were 20 subscribers, (members) each contributing Rs.25,000/- per month for a period of 20 months.  It is also not dispute that the complainant has paid the monthly chit installment of Rs.25,000/- during the first month and fail to pay the subscription towards the chit for the rest of the 19 months.  Now the prayer of the complainant is that after making payment of Rs.25,000/- on 03.12.2014 towards the monthly installment of the chit, he did not continue to contribute due to financial crisis.  Therefore the complainant has requested the opposite party to refund the amount, which the opposite party refused.

10. The main ground upon which the opposite party is contesting this case is that the complaint is barred by limitation.  This point needs some discussion. Except the opposite party contending in the version that the complaint is not maintainable since it is barred by limitation nowhere it is stated as to why and how it is barred by limitation.  Therefore the contention taken by the opposite party on this ground is vague and hence cannot be accepted.  The other reason for not accepting contention of the opposite party that the complaint is being barred by limitation is that admittedly the first installment of Rs.25,000/- towards the chit was paid by the complainant on 03.12.2014.  It is in the complaint that 3 months later he requested the opposite party to cancel the chit in his name and refund the amount.    But it was not refunded.  In a document produced by the complainant which is in the form of a passbook but named as “AUCTION DETAILS”   it  is clearly mentioned at page No.5  that       “chit cancellation amount will be refunded only after the termination of the group”.  This chit which commenced on 03.12.2014 was for a period of 20 months and its expiry dated was 05.07.2016.  This could be seen from the details of the chit fund at serial No.8 of the copy of the document certificate of incorporation.  So as per the condition found in the document issued by the opposite party itself the liability to refund the amount to the subscriber who canceled the chit arose after the termination of the chit which was on 05.07.2016.  That is the date on which the cause of action arose. The present complaint is filed on 29.05.2017 i.e., within 2 years from the date on which the cause of auction arose.  The cause of action for the complainant to claim refund of the amount had arisen on 05.07.2006 which is the date of the termination of the chit.  In the absence of any other material produced by the opposite party to support its contention that the complaint is barred by limitation it has to be held on the basis of available material discussed above that the complaint is filed within the period of limitation of 2 years when calculated from 05.07.2016 i.e., the date of termination of chit.

11. The second objection raised by the opposite party disowning his liability to refund the amount is that as per the conditions prevailing in their company the first installment paid or payable by the member of the chit group will be appropriated towards Foreman’s Commission which is equal to 5% of the value of the chit (i.e., 5% of Rs.5,00,000/-).  It is also contended by the opposite party that the same is mentioned in the passbook issued by the company.  The burden of proving this aspect is on the opposite party.  In this case as already stated above the opposite party has not at all entered into witness box to lead evidence to justify the stand taken or not even the affidavit evidence of the responsible officer of the opposite party company has been filed to support the same.  That apart the so called rules which provides for appropriating the first installment of the subscription for the chit fund towards Foreman Commission has not been produced.  Not even the passbook carrying such condition produced.  Even the documents which are produced by the complainant which are in  the name of the opposite party company only do not carry any such rule or condition to the effect that the member’s first contribution towards the chit fund would be towards Foreman Commission.  Therefore we are constrained to conclude that the opposite party who has taken the contention mentioned above has failed to prove the same.  If really those contentions are true, nothing prevented the opposite party from producing the relevant rules and the passbook carrying such condition.  The non-production of these documents which ought to be in the custody of the opposite party, if the contention is true compel us to draw an inference  that there is no such condition.  Therefore the act of the opposite party in not refunding the said sum of Rs.25,000/- to the complainant after the termination of the said chit amounts to violation of the condition mentioned in the document itself as said above and this amounts to deficiency of service.

12. Further it is not the case of the opposite party that on account of the complainant discontinuing to be a member of the said chit group after making contribution of only one installment he  had suffered loss.  To put it in other words the opposite party has not produced any material to show that due to the non-continuation in the said chit group by the complainant, the opposite party did not induct any other person in place of the complainant and thereby loss has occasioned to the opposite party company and also to the other members of the group.

13. In the light of the discussions made above, we are of the considered view that the opposite party has committed an act of deficiency of service.  Accordingly, we answer point No.1 in the affirmative and in favour of the complainant.

14. POINT No.2 & 3 :-   In view of the finding recorded on point No.1 in the affirmative, the next aspect that needs our consideration is about the entitlement of the complainant to the reliefs claimed. 

15. The complainant has sought for direction to the opposite party to refund the amount with cost.  While passing an order the Forum has to keep in mind the provisions of section 14 of the Consumer Protection Act and give all such benefits which could be given to a successful complainant.

16. The claim made by the complainant for a direction to the opposite party to refund Rs.25,000/- is justified.  It is more so when the document produced by the complainant which was issued to him by the opposite party does not provide anywhere about any deduction to be made from the said amount.  Therefore we hold that the complainant is entitle to receive Rs.25,000/- from the opposite party.

17. The liability on the opposite party to refund the amount arose subsequent to 05.07.2016 which is the date on which that chit was terminated.  The complainant has made a written request also on 20.04.2017 to the opposite party to refund the amount.  The copy of that letter along with the copy of the postal receipt for having dispatched the same under RPAD has been produced by the complainant.  Even then the opposite party did not refund the amount.  Thus the money belonging to the complainant was lying with the opposite party without earning any interest from 05.07.2016.  On the other hand, the opposite party retaining that amount with itself is enriching at the cost of the complainant.  Therefore in order to compensate that loss we deem it fit and proper to direct the opposite party to return the said amount of Rs.25,000/- with interest at the rate of 10% p.a. to be calculated from 06.07.2016 till the date of actual payment.

18. It is the case of the complainant that due to the financial crisis he could not continue to subscribe for the chit except for the first month.  One can imagine the physical and mental stress that the complainant must have undergone when his money was lying idle with the opposite party particularly from 06.07.2016.  Therefore we deep it fit and proper to direct the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- as compensation for the mental agony undergone by the complainant.

19. When the opposite party did not bother to refund the amount even after the receipt of the written letter dated 20.04.2017 or by not even replying to that letter that has  driven the complainant to file this complaint in the year 2017 and has been fighting this case throughout by spending money.  Therefore we award a sum of Rs.1,000/- as cost of litigation to the complainant.  Accordingly, we answer point No.2 partly in the affirmative and in favour of the complainant and proceed to pass the following final order.

                                         -:ORDER:-

 The complaint filed by the complainant Sri. Shashidhar .N is allowed in part as under.

The complainant is entitled to the refund of a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Twenty five thousand)  from the opposite party together with interest 10% p.a. to be calculated on the said amount from 06.07.2016 up to the date of actual payment.

     The complainant is also entitle to receive a sum of Rs.2,000/- (Thirty  Thousand)  only  from the opposite party as compensation towards mental agony undergone by him.

   The complainant is also entitle to receive a sum of Rs.1,000/-  (One thousand) only  from the opposite party being the cost of  litigation. 

The opposite parties shall comply with the above direction within 30 days from the date of order.

  Supply free copy of this order to both the parties.

(Dictated to the Steno, typed by her, transcript corrected, revised and then pronounced by the open Forum on 1^st day of January 2020)

                           //ANNEXURE//

LIST OF WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS

 Witness examined on behalf of the Complainant:

1. Sri. Shashidhar .N, who being the Complainant has filed his affidavit.

 List of documents filed by the Complainant:

1. Receipts.
2. Letter dated 20.04.2017 to opposite party from the complainant.

Witness examined on behalf of the Opposite Parties:

• Nil -

List of documents filed by the Opposite Party:

• Nil -