State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Vanukonda Madhu ... vs M/S. Tirumala Chits (Regd.) ,Rep. By Its ... on 13 July, 2011
BEFORE THE A BEFORE THE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD. F.A.No.50/2008 against C.C.No.213/2006, DISTRICT FORUM, Karimnagar. Between Vanukonda Madhu Kumar,S/o.V.Tirupataiah, Age : 34 years, R/o.4-5-3/A, Subashnagar, Peddapalli Town & Mandal, Karimnagar. Appellant/ Complainant And M/s. Tirumala Chits (Regd.) , Rep. by its Foremen Ch.Sathyanarayana Rao, N.T.P.C., Medipalli Road, Jyothinagar, Ramagundam Mandal, Karimnagar. Respondent/ Opp.party Counsel for the Appellant : M/s.G.Shashidhar Reddy Counsel for the Respondent : Mr.P.Raja Sripathi Rao QUORUM:THE HONBLE JUSTICE SRI D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT And SMT. M.SHREESHA, HONBLE MEMBER
WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND ELEVEN.
(Typed to dictation of Smt.M.Shreesha, Honble Member) ***** Aggrieved by the order in C.C.No.213 of 06 on the file of District Forum, Karimnagar, the complainant preferred this appeal.
The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant joined opposite party chit fund and subscribed two chits of Rs.3 lakhs each, the monthly instalments being Rs.7,500/- per month for 40 months. Both the chits were allotted the same ticket no.T.T.4/1 and commenced from 20.5.05. The complainant paid 18 instalments in each chit i.e. Rs.1,57,320/-. He participated in an auction on 20.6.05 and became the successful bidder and issued two separate cheques for Rs.80,000/- and also promissory note as security for release of the prize amount. After completion of all formalities, opposite party issued a cheque for Rs.1 lakh which was dishonoured due to insufficient funds. Inspite of several requests, the opposite party did not pay the amounts. Hence the complaint seeking direction to the opposite party to pay Rs.1,57,320/- along with the accrued dividends of Rs.60,180/- together with compensation and costs.
Opposite party filed written version stating that the complainant joined the said two chits during the 12th instalment by paying Rs.84,530/- by 24.8.2005. The auction was conducted on 25.8.2005 and one chit was auctioned at Rs.1,08,000/- and another at Rs.1,02,200/-. Thereafter the opposite party sustained heavy losses and settled the complainants account at Rs.1,45,000/- for two chits in the presence of Edla Jithender and Prasad Rao who represented the complainant. The complainant accepted the settlement and took Rs.70,000/- and Rs.30,000/- and returned the dishonoured cheque. The balance of Rs.45,000/- was paid to the complainant in the presence of the said Edla Jithender and Prasad Rao and an undertaking was taken on 20.9.2005. Thereafter on 18.10.2006 the chit was closed and submits that there is no deficiency in service on their behalf.
The District Forum based on the evidence adduced i.e. Exs.A1 to A12 and B1 to B8 and pleadings put forward dismissed the complaint The facts not in dispute are that the complainant joined two chits for Rs.3 lakhs each and paid Rs.1,56,320/- towards subscription amounts as evidenced under Exs.A6 to A12 under which he paid Rs.32,690/-, Rs.36,750/-, Rs.9750/-, Rs.11,780/-, Rs.11,350/-, Rs.27,000/- and Rs.27,000/- respectively. It is the complainants case that he was a successful bidder in the auction held on 20.6.2005 and issued two cheques for Rs.80,000/- each and also a promissory note towards security and the opposite party issued a cheque for Rs.1 lakh which was dishonoured (B7). It is the case of the opposite party that a settlement was reached between the complainant and opposite party in the presence of elders Edla Jithender and Prasad Rao. It is pertinent to note that the complainant has filed an affidavit by way of evidence stating that no such payments have been made to him refuting the affidavits filed by the said elders. It is oath against oath. Ex.B1 is the Registration of Firm certificate and being a registered firm an amount of Rs.1,45,000/- could not have been paid without issuance of a proper receipt towards full and final satisfaction. The District Forum has relied on some entries in Ex.A5 which does not tally and there is no clear statement of account filed by the opposite party to explain the several entries made in Ex.A5. There is no documentary evidence with respect to payment of these amounts specially when the initial cheque of Rs.1 lakh given to the complainant was dishonoured. When huge amounts of Rs.70,000/-, Rs.30,000/- and Rs.45,000/- were allegedly paid by the opposite party , there are no substantial reasons as to why no receipts were taken from the complainant to establish the payments made. We are of the considered view that an amount of Rs.1,56,320/- (Exs.A6 to A12) paid by the complainant be refunded to him. No further deductions is being ordered since the chit itself has closed down.
In the result this appeal is allowed and order of the District Forum is set aside and consequently the complaint is allowed. We direct the opp.party to refund Rs.1,56,320/- to the complainant together with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till the date of realization together with costs of Rs.5000/-. Time for compliance four weeks.
PRESIDENT MEMBER Pm* Dt. 13.7.2011.