F.A. 1207/2005  against C.D. 257/2003,  Dist. Forum-I, Hyderabad.

Between:

B. Sudhakar Raju,

S/o. Late B. Narayana Raju

Age: 53 years, Bank Employee

H.No. 16-11-741/C/A/51

SBH Colony, Moosarambagh

Hyderabad-500 036.                                   ***                           Appellant/

            Complainant 

                                                                    And

1. Varakavi Shyam Raju (Died)

2. Smt. V. Jhansi Lakshmi

W/o. Late Shyam Raju

Age: 50 years,

3. Smt. B. Jyothi

W/o. B. Sashidhar Raju

Age: 26  years

Empoloyee in USA

4. Varakavi Swapna (B.E.)

D/o. Late V. Shyam Raju

Age: 24 years,

Private Service

5. Varakavi Shilpa

D/o. Late Varakavi Shyam Raju

Age: 23 years,  Student

All R/o. H.No. 16/11/511/C/51

Pratapnagar Colony

Moosarambagh

Hyderabad-500 036.                                   ***                         Respondents/

Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Petitioner:                         M/s. Kota Subba Rao

Counsel for the Respondent:                       Admission Stage

QUORUM:

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT.

                                        &

                                 SMT.M.SHREESHA, LADY MEMBER.

TUESDAY, THE  SIXTEENTH   DAY OF SEPTEMBER  TWO THOUSAND EIGHT.

ORAL ORDER:  (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice D. Appa Rao, President.)

***

          The unsuccessful complainant is the appellant. 

          The case of the complainant in brief is that  the respondents were running private chits.   The complainant has joined in  three chits.  He paid Rs. 2,500/- per month for 27 months from July, 1998 to September, 2000  in regard to chit series ‘C’.   He paid Rs. 1,670/- p.m. from July, 1998 to  August, 1999 for 13 months for the chit series ‘F’ and also paid Rs. 2,000/- p.m. for a total value of Rs. 50,000/- for the chit series ‘B’.  He had to get Rs. 2,02,500/-  for the chit series ‘C’, Rs. 45,090/- towards chit series ‘F’ and Rs. 1,14,000/- towards chit series ‘B’.  When the respondents did not pay even the subscription amount, he lodged a complaint before the Station House Officer, Malakpet.   When the police declined to receive the complaint, he filed a private complaint before the 12^th Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad who in turn directed the police to register the case.   It was still under investigation.   R1 is an employee in ECIL.   He did not issue receipts for payment of instalments.   They have themselves recorded the entries in the diary maintained by him.   The respondents failed to settle the account.  Therefore, they prayed that the said amount be paid with interest @ 24% p.a., and  Rs. 50,000/- towards compensation and Rs. 10,000/- towards costs.

          During the pendency of  the case R1 died and R2 to R5 were impleaded as his LRs.  They filed their counter denying that R1 conducted the chits.  They denied each and every allegation made in the complaint.  He never  run any chit. He  denied that the complainant was entitled to any of the amounts.  The complainant has lodged a false complaint which was equally dismissed and therefore  prayed for dismissal of the complaint  with costs.

          The complainant in proof of his case filed his affidavit evidence and Exs. A1 to A17, while the respondents did not file any documents.  The Dist. Forum after considering the material on record  opined that there is no proof that the respondent was running chit fund nor the complainant subscribed the amounts.  The affidavits filed on behalf of  the complainant alleging that the respondent was running a chit cannot be believed being the statements of mother, brother and brother-in-law.  None of the documents contains the signatures of the respondents.  When the complainant could not show that he was subscriber of the chits, the question of awarding amount will not arise.   At any rate, the claim is barred by limitation and therefore dismissed the complaint without costs.

          Aggrieved by the said decision, the complaint preferred this appeal contending that the Dist. Forum did not appreciate the facts in correct perspective.  Since R1 is the Brother-in-law and R2 his own sister, reposing confidence on them, he did not insist for  receipts.   The affidavits of  his friends, and family members show that R1 ran a chit fund business.  R1 was an employee in ECIL, a responsible officer.  He believed him and contributed the amounts towards the chits. He filed the complaint within two  years from the date of termination of chits.  Therefore, he  prayed that the appeal be allowed.

          It is an undisputed fact that R1 is the brother-in-law and R2 is the sister of the complainant.  He alleged that they were running a private chit business wherein he subscribed to three chits viz., ‘C, F and B’ series.  The defense of the respondent is of total denial.   

At the  out set, we may state that the complainant did not file any documents  to show that he had  contributed  any of the amounts towards any of the chits.  Neither receipts were taken nor any endorsement or acknowledgement showing  that they have paid the amounts.   The complainant himself has noted the payment  particulars  in  regard  to  the chits in  his  diary  marked  as Ex. A17 running into 24 pages.   The complainant for the reasons best known did not take the signatures of   either of the respondents, in any of the entries.  They are self-serving evidence.   The complainant  filed affidavits of his friends and relatives marked as Exs. A5 to A14 wherein they have mentioned that R1 & R2 are running private chits, wherein they have contributed the amounts.   They did not append  any of the documents  to show that any of them had paid subscriptions to the respondents, nor they in turn gave any receipts acknowledging  payment of subscriptions.  Their statements without any documents would in no way  prove that he ran the chit.  No doubt the complainant  has given a complaint before the police on which the police registered a case in Crime No. 144/2001.  The High Court of A.P. granted bail to the respondents evidenced under Ex. A4 orders.  Obviously, FIR was registered  on a private complaint   filed by the complainant before the Magistrate was forwarded to the police.  This  will not help the complainant in any way to prove that R1 & R2  had cheated the parties by opening a private chit.   The respondents  asserted  that the said complaint was dismissed.  The complainant did not contradict the said version.

It is further his case that  one Sri M. Ramdass, Head Cashier, SBH, an elder tried to settle the dispute, however, the respondents did not agree to his settlement vide Ex. A9.  This would in no way prove his case.  Since the complainant has absolutely failed to prove that the  respondents ran  chit fund business  wherein  they  have  subscribed the amounts, we are unable to agree

with their contention.  This is a case of total lack of evidence, not even a single document  was filed to prove that they had contributed the amounts towards the chit.    The evidence of  appellants  were equally  refuted by the respondents.  It is oath against oath.  We have perused the order of the Dist. Forum and we do not see any irregularity or illegality in  appreciation of the evidence in this regard.  We do not see any merits in the appeal.

          In the result the appeal is dismissed.  However, in the circumstances of the case no costs.

                    PRESIDENT                                               LADY MEMBER

                                                Dt. 16.09.2008

*pnr

CORRECTED – O.K.