State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Konakanchi Madhu, S/O.Late ... vs 1.The Chairman,Shriram Group ... on 10 June, 2011
BEFORE THE A BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: HYDERABAD C.C.36 of 2008 Between: Konakanchi Madhu, S/o.late K.Veerabhadraiah, Aged 36 years, Occupation, Priest, R/o.Kodada (town & mandal), Nalgonda (District), A.P. 508206. Complainant And 1.The Chairman, Shriram Group Companies 12 the Besant Road, Royapeth, Chennai, Tamilnadu. 2. The General Manager, Shriram Chits (P) Ltd., 3rd floor, 3-6-478, Anand Estates, Opp:Indian Bank, Liberty Road, Himayath Nagar, Hyderabad. 3.The Divisional Manager, Shriram Chits (P) Ltd., Above S.B.I.Building , Sagar Road, Miryalaguda (Town & Mandal) Nalgonda (Dist.) 4. The Branch Manager, Shriram Chits (P) Ltd., D.No.10-136, Huzurnagar Road, Kodada (town & Mandal, Nalgonda (Dist) 5. The Registrar of Chits, Nalgonda District Chit Registration Department, O/o.Registration & Stamps Department, Nalgonda (Town & District). 6. The Commissioner & Inspector General of Registration and Stamps , O/o.Commissioner & Inspector General of Registration & Stamps, N.B.K.Estates , D.No.1-7-10, R.T.C. X Roads, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 7. The District Collector, Nalgonda , Andhra Pradesh. Opposite parties Counsel for the complainant : Mr.Konakanchi Madhu, PIP. Counsel for the opposite party : M/S.C.Raghu-Ops.1 to 4 Mr. Rupender Pershad Waghray,G.P.-O.P.5 to 7 QUORUM: The Honble Justice Sri D.Appa Rao, President And Smt M.Shreesha, Honble Member
FRIDAY THE TENTH DAY OF JUNE, TWO THOUSAND ELEVEN.
Oral Order ( Typed to dictation of Smt M.Shreesha, Honble Member) *** The brief facts as stated in the complaint are that the complainant joined opp.party chit on 29.7.2003 and paid a sum of Rs.1,88,015/- towards non prized chit of Rs.5 lakhs of 50 months at Rs.10,000/- each month. He paid the last subscription on 27.4.06 for Rs.1 lakh including a penalty of Rs.20,000/-. On 20.7.2006 opp.parties 1 to 4 removed his membership without giving prior notice as per Section 20 (1) (2) of A.P. Chit Fund Act,1971. This removal was not even intimated to the Registrar of Chits under Section 20 (3) (4) of A.P.Chit Fund Act,1971. .
The complainant submits that the opposite parties did not adhere to Sub Section 1 of Section 20 and Section 21 of A.P.Chit Fund Act,1971. He also submitted in his complaint that Sub Section 2 and Sub Section 3 of Section 21 read together with Sections 2, 22 and Section 13 of A.P.Chit Fund Act 1971 clearly specifies that the complainant should have been given an opportunity before removal and that the removal to be informed to the Registrar of Chits and that any substitution made in the place of defaulting subscriber to be entered in the relevant book and filed with the Registrar of Chits within 14 days from the date of substitution. It is the complainants case that a notice was sent to him on 10.5.2006 which he rejected since the notice ought to have been sent on 20th or 21st of May and infact he took notice on 27.4.06 and paid Rs.1 lakh and he also paid Rs.20,000/- towards penal interest. The complainant submits that he received a legal notice from Sriram Chits Pvt. Ltd. in August, 2006 as he stood as guarantor for chit no. KDTN 2/34 , his wifes chit as it was due around Rs.20,000/-. The complainant approached opposite party on 5.9.2006 and cleared his dues and he was told that his membership was removed. So the very next day he informed the opposite party to adjust the future liability with advance payments from KDLC 5/25. The complainant submits that he stood as a guarantor for one M.Bhaskar, Ch.Pavan Kumar Sharma, S.Gayatri Prasad, P.Vijayalakshmi and T.Srinivasa Rao who are not defaulters and they were not charged any notice regarding the default but opp.parties 1 to 4 adjusted the entire amount towards their prized chits. The complainant submits that after pursuing, he was informed that the adjustment was based on his previous requisition letter given on 6.9.2006 which he submits was forged by opp.parties 1 to 4 and also that any such adjustment was contrary to Section 22 of A.P.C.F.Act,1971. The complainant gave a notice on 12.12.06 for which the opposite parties replied on 27.12.2006 stating that removal intimation advise was filed with the Registrar of Chits on 26.7.06. The complainant approached the Registrar of Chits on 18.1.2007 but was informed that no such removal intimation belonging to Ticket no.25 was mentioned.
According to the Chit fund Act,1971 opp.parties 1 to 4 have to submit the Substitution Agreement copy within 14 days of removal which was prescribed under Sub Section 1 of Section 21 of the A.P.C.F. Act. The complainant submits that opp.parties 1 to 4 also bid the removed chit for a bid amount of Rs.55,000/- with the prize money of Rs.4,45,000/- which is in violation of Section 13 of A.P.C.F. Act. He further submits that opp.parties 1 to 4 deliberately violated the Indian Stamps Rules,1925 by pasting adhesive stamps from Sub Registrar of Huzur Nagar on 4.10.2006, but was executed on 20.7.06 and that the Registrar has failed to discharge his duty and endorsed this fake document.
The complainant further submits that receipt nos.244 and 246 from the receipt books are dt.14.7.06 but receipt no.245 is dt.26.7.07 .and that receipt no.245 has been submitted by the opposite party in W.P.No.16757 of 07 stating that vide receipt no.245 13 transactions were made and that the present complainant has been substituted b y by law no.166/03-04 and therefore the complainant submits that this receipt is forged one and does not have the signature of the Sub Registrar.
Vexed with their attitude the complainant filed this complaint seeking direction to the opp.parties as follows:
1. to repay complainants entire share paid with dividend from the date of removal (20.7.2006). The complainants paid up value is Rs.1,88,015/- and the approximate dividend comes around Rs.70,000/- and the penalty @ 3 paise per rupee as per column no.11(a) of Company by laws which comes around to Rs.4,36,045/-
2. to repay Rs.4,45,000/- which was unlawfully bidded by the opp.parties 1 to 4 on 22.10.2006 with penalty @ 6 paise per rupee as per the prescribed rate of the Companies By Laws Column no.11 which comes around to Rs.10,05,700/-,
3. to repay Rs.4,74,975/- belonging to the complainants final bidding amount along with penalty,
4. to pay Rs.50,000/- towards his earlier correspondences with the concerned authorities , to pay Rs.7000/- towards litigation expenses and to pay Rs.3,60,000/- towards damage expenses for his livelihood.
Opp.parties 1 to 4 filed a common counter and they submit that a registered removal notice dt.10.5.06 was sent to the complainant and the same was acknowledged by the complainant but, he sent it back. The complainant was removed on 20.7.06 and the same was informed to the Registrar of Chit on 26.7.06. They appropriated the amount due to him as per his own letter dt.6.9.06 which also reveals that he is aware of his removal and therefore the complainant cannot submit that he was removed without notice or removed without subsequent intimation and therefore there is no deficiency in service on their behalf.
Opp.party no.5 also filed counter and also on behalf of opp.parties 6 and 7 stating that there is no relationship of consumer and service provider between the complainant and themselves and that they discharged statutory functions and therefore do not fall within the jurisdiction of this Commission. They submit that there was a mistake with respect to reception of intimation and there was a discrepancy in the dates of the substitution chit agreement i.e. 20.7.06 and the date 4.10.2006 in stamps had occurred only due to rush of duty and opp.party no.5 did not indulge in any malpractice. They also submitted that action was initiated against opposite parties 1 to 4 for violation of the provisions of Chit Fund Act.
This Commission based on the evidence adduced i.e. Exs.A1 to A32 and B1 to B16 allowed the complaint directing opp.parties 1 to 4 to pay to the complainant jointly and severally Rs.1,88,015/- with interest at 9% from 20.7.2006 till the date of realization together with compensation of Rs.1 lakh and costs of Rs.10,000/-. Case against opposite parties 5 to 7 is dismissed without costs.
Aggrieved by this order opposite parties .1 to 4 preferred F.A.76/2010 before the National Commission. The National Commission partly allowed the appeal and remanded this case back to the State Commission to decide the matter afresh and also to consider the plea of the respondent with regard to his chit no.DLC 5/25 having been restored under the order of Govt. of Andhra Pradesh, Registration and Stamps Department. The National Commission observed that the question as to whether the appellants were entitled to adjust amount of Rs.1,63,015/- towards the dues payable by the other chit subscribers is required to be answered by the State Commission having regard to the terms and conditions of the chit agreement and the consent given by the complainant which has been not considered by the State Commission.
As per the order of the National Commission this matter was heard by this Commission afresh. The complainant filed CCIA.2854/2010 to call for the original records maintained by the opp.parties. This I.A. was allowed in part with a direction to the respondents to file the originals of Ex.A5, B11 and B12 by 15.4.2011 and on failure to file these documents, an adverse inference would be drawn . Opp.parties 1 to 4 filed CCIA.866/2011 seeking time to trace the original of Exs.A5 and filed original of Ex.B11 and certified copy of Ex.B12 and related documents of Ex.A5. Opp.parties contended that original of Ex.A5 is presented before the District Registrar, Nalgonda for verification and is not in their possession. Opp.parties 1 to 4 filed I.A.2538/2010 to receive documents by way of additional evidence and Ex.B17 to B22 have been marked on their behalf.
Ex.B17 is the chit agreement dt.31.7.2003 in KDLL05/25 in favour of K.Madhu. Exs.B18 to B22 are also chit agreements dt.30.4.2004, 26.2.2004,13.4.04,17.9.2004 and 26.2.2004 respectively entered in favour of S.Gayatri Prasad, P.Vijayalakshmi, C.H.Pavan Kumar Sharma, T.Srinivasa Rao and C.H.Saritha.
The brief point that falls for consideration is whether the opp.parties are entitled to adjust the amounts of the complainant towards the dues payable by the other chit subscribers having regard to the terms and conditions of the chit agreement and the consent given by the complainant ?
The National Commission order reads as follows:
We have heard Mrs.K.Radha Rao, learned counsel for the appellants and the respondent no.1 in person and have considered their respective submissions. Mrs. Rao would assail the impugned order on a number of grounds. Her first submission is that the State Commission had no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint as the reliefs claimed by the complainant were exaggerated and well within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Forum. Her next contention is that going by the terms and conditions of the agreement of chit dated 30.04.04 entered between the parties, the appellants were entitled to adjust the amount payable to the complainant on removal of his membership towards other dues in respect of any other subscriber(s) for whom he stood the guarantor. In this connection, our attention has been invited to clause 17 of the said agreement as also to a letter-Exhibit A-5 on the record of these proceedings. By the said letter, the complainant had himself accepted removal of his membership and thereafter requested the appellants to adjust the Removal Subscription amount of Rs.1,63,015/- from his chit KDL S5/25 towards the chit no.KDTN2 34 belonging to his wife and to refund the balance amount to him. Letter dated 10.05.06 emanating from the appellants (Page 73 of the paper book) would clearly show that a sum of Rs.1,63,015/- was payable to the complainant after deducting a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards violation of chit agreement calculated @ 5% from the amount of chit viz. Rs.5 lakh. The question as to whether the appellants were entitled to adjust the amount of Rs.1,63,015/- towards the dues payable by the other chit subscriber(s) was required to be answered by the State Commission having regard to the terms and conditions of the chit agreement and the consent given by the complainant which, in our opinion, has not been considered and answered by the State Commission. We are of the view that the matter requires reconsideration and afresh decision by the State Commission on consideration of entirety of the facts and circumstances and in particular the terms and conditions of the chit agreement entered between the parties. So far as, the plea in regard to lack of pecuniary jurisdiction of the State Commission is concerned, we may simply observe that the State Commission has not done anything wrong in entertaining the complaint because the relief claimed by the complainant in the complaint was well within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the State Commission.
In the result, the appeal is partly allowed, impugned order ids hereby set aside and the complaint is remitted back to the State Commission for deciding the same afresh in the manner as noted above. The State Commission may also consider the plea of the respondent and its effect in regard to his chit no.DLC 5/25 having been restored under the order of Government of Andhra Pradesh, Registration and Stamp Department . The First appeal stands disposed of. The parties shall appear before the State Commission on 16.09.10 for receiving further directions in the matter. No order as to costs in these proceedings.
It is the complainants case that he joined the opposite party Chit Fund Company as a subscriber vide ticket no.25 , known as KDLC 5/25 and paid Rs.1,88,015/- towards his chit account and was a non prized chit holder valued at Rs.10,000/- per month, face value of chit being Rs.5 lakhs. It is his case that he joined the chit on 29.7.2003 and paid his last instalment on 27.4.2006. While so, on 20.7.2006, he was removed from the membership by the opposite parties 1 to 4 without adhering to sections 20(1)(2)(3) and (4) of A.P.Chit Fund Act,1971. The party in person submitted that he was deprived of a chance to prefer an appeal against his removal and that after removal instead of paying him the amount which was due to him, opposite parties 1 to 4 obtained a written requisition for adjustment in respect of the amount due from his wife who was also removed from the membership. He further submitted that on substitution agreement which was executed on 20.7.2006 had stamps dt.4.10.2006, which was brought to the notice of the opposite parties 5 to 7.
Under these circumstances the complainant seek direction to the opposite parties to pay him Rs.1,88,015 + dividend of Rs.70,000/- along with penal interest, compensation and costs.
Opposite parties 1 to 4 contend that a registered removal notice dt.10.5.2006 was sent to the complainant and only subsequent to that notice he was removed on 20.7.2006 and the same was informed to the Registrar of Chits on 26.7.2006. His letter dt.6.9.2006 reveals that the complainant is aware of his removal and therefore there is no deficiency in service on their behalf.
Opposite parties 5 to 7 contend that the discrepancy in the date of the substitution chit agreement is a mistake and they also testified that opposite parties 1 to 4 violated the provisions of A.P. Chit Fund Act,1971.
Ex.A4 which is the same as Ex.B1 is dt.10.5.2006 and states that the complainant was removed in the past but does not mention the date of removal. Ex.A4 confirms a removal which happened prior to the said notice and is only confirming with by virtue of Ex.A4. It is the case of the opp.parties that the date of removal is 20.7.2006 which is contradictory to their own document Ex.B1/A4. We also observe from the record that the Chit Substitution Agreement is dt.20.7.2006 while the intimation was done on 26.7.2006 and the date on adhesive stamps is 4.10.2006.
With respect to this discrepancy opposite party no.5 admitted in his para 9 of his counter that the mistake crept in due to rush of work but there is no intention of malpractice. Keeping in view the discrepancy this Commission cannot take cognizance of fact that there was a valid information of the Substitution Agreement and therefore any substitution by virtue of the same is simply invalid.
Sections 20, 21 and 22 of A.P.Chit Fund Act reads as follows.
20. Removal of defaulting subscribers:-- A non prized subscriber who defaults in paying his subscription in accordance with the terms of the chit agreement shall be liable to have his name removed from the list of subscribers. Every such removal shall, with the date thereof, be entered in the relevant book maintained by the foreman.
A written notice of such removal shall be given by the foreman to the defaulting subscriber within fourteen days of such removal.
(2). A true copy of the entry referred to in sub-section (1) shall be filed by the foreman with the Registrar within fourteen days from the date of such removal.
(3)Any defaulting subscriber aggrieved by the removal of his name from the list of subscribers may within seven days of the communication to him of the notice of removal, appeal to the Registrar The Registrar may, after giving the parties an opportunity of making a representation pass such order on the appeal as he thinks fit and the decision of the registrar shall be final
21. Substitution of subscribers:- (1) The foreman may substitute in the list of subscribers any person in the place of a defaulting subscriber whose name has been removed from such list under sub section(1) of Section 20:
Provided that no such substitution shall be made until the expiry of the period allowed for appeal under sub-section (3) of Section 20, or where any such appeal has been preferred until the same has been disposed of .
2.
Every substitution referred to in sub-section (1) shall, with the date thereof, be entered in the relevant book maintained by the foreman. A true copy of every such entry shall be filed by the foreman with the Registrar within fourteen days from the date of substitution.
(3)All arrears of subscriptions realized from the substituted subscribers, less any amount advanced by the foreman, shall before the date of the next succeeding instalment, be deposited by the foreman in an approved bank mentioned in the chit agreement. The foreman shall not withdraw the amount so deposited except for payment to the defaulting subscriber.
Explanation:-For the purpose of sub-section (3) , arrears of subscriptions shall mean all the previous instalments realized from the substituted subscriber.
22. Amount due to defaulting subscriber how dealt with :- When ; i subscriber draws the prize amount the defaulting subscriber shall be entitled to recover from the foreman his contribution subject to such deduction as may be provided for in the chit agreement . The foreman shall on demand made by the defaulting subscriber and on his executing an acknowledgement duly signed be bound to pay to the defaulting subscriber the amount due to him before the date of the next succeeding instalment. If the defaulting subscriber fails to furnish the acknowledgement as aforesaid, the foreman shall, before the date of the next succeeding instalment deposit in an approved bank the amount due to the defaulting subscriber. The amount so deposited shall not be withdrawn by the foreman for any purpose other than for payment to the defaulting subscriber.
The original of Ex.B 11 and 12 is dt.1 6.1.09 and reads as follows:
A perusal of Ex.B11 the original of which has been filed by the opposite party shows that there was indeed a complaint made by the complainant for which the opposite party replied to the Registrar , Government of Andhra Pradesh, Registration and Stamps Department that the Foreman at the time of offence committed is alone personally responsible and he ought to be punished . It is pertinent to note that the enclosure of Ex.B11 is the original of Rs.100/- receipt paid as penalty for violating Sections 20,21 and 22 of C.F.Act,1971. This establishes beyond doubt that the opposite parties 1 to 4 have indeed violated these sections and have been fined Rs.100/- has penalty . Ex.B12 is the letter addressed by the District Registrar on 16.1.2009 stating that the Foreman of the opposite parties 1 to 4 has violated the provisions of Sections 20,21 and 22 of Chit Fund Act,1971 for which the afore mentioned Rs.100/- has been imposed as fine. To reiterate Exs.B11 and B12 clearly establishes that the opp.parties 1 to 4 have violated Sections 20,21 and 22 of A.P.Chit Fund Act,1971 with respect to removal of the membership of the complainant herein.
Ex.A5 original of which the opp.party did not trace and did not file here is the document on which the complainant is relying upon. Inspite of directions from this Commission, opp.parties 1 to 4 failed to file the original of Ex.A5. Copy of Ex.A5 is scanned as follows :
It is apparent on the face of the record that vide Exs.B11 and B12, opp.parties 1 to 4 did not follow the terms of the Chit Agreement prior to the removal as they failed to prove the existence of notice of removal with respect to the exact date of issue which demolishes the very existence of such a notice. In the instant case the complainant is admitting his removal by opp.parties 1 to 4 but he is questioning the validity of such a removal as it is against the provisions of Sections 20, 21 and 22 of A.P.Chit Fund Act. Ex.A5 is the document on which the complainant is relying. The party in person submitted that there is an interpolation in the last two sentences. To reiterate, the original of Ex.A5 is called for but it was not filed though it was noted in the docket that an adverse inference would be drawn if Ex.A5 original is not filed. A brief perusal of Ex.A5 shows that there is a discrepancy in the writing in the last paragraph and also an interpolation of the number 1,63,015, and words and lien chits. This clearly establishes that there was no consent by the complainant to adjust his amounts towards other chits but only with respect to adjustment from KDLC 5/25 to KDTN 2/34 . It is also pertinent to note the amount 1,63,015,and the words and lien chits appears in the left hand side column whereas the paragraphs prior to it do not have any such additions in the column . Party in person also drew our attention to Clause 17 of chit agreement which reads as follows:
17.
Period within which subscription for each instalment is payable and the fine and/or penalty for belated payments.
NON PRIZED SUBSCRIBER: If a non prized subscriber fails to deposit his monthly subscription before the due date penalty will be charged at the rate of 3 paise per rupee or part there of. If the default is continued to second month penalty will charged at the rate of 6 paise per rupee or part there of per month, if the default continues for more than two months the subscriber will not be entitled to dividends in addition to the aforesaid penalty charges. A subscriber who has not made upto date payments of all instalments due from him, will not be permitted to bid in the auction. If he does, his bid will be cancelled and he will be required to make good the loss incurred for transferring the bid to another subscriber or for conducting the re-auction. If the non-prized subscriber fails to pay subscription for three consecutive instalments he shall be liable to be removed from the list of subscribers and the foreman at his option, shall be entitled to substitute a new subscriber in place of defaulting subscriber or may himself subscribe for the ticket and the defaulted ticket of the chit will be dealt with subject to the bye-laws and the relevant provisions f the Chit Funds Act.
The Foreman at his discretion can waive the penalties partly or fully and can also postpone the removal in suitable and deserving cases. An expelled member may be re-admitted on such terms as the foreman deems proper.
As seen from the record, there is no documentary evidence that this Clause 17 has been adhered to by opposite parties 1 to 4. In the instant case the opp.parties 1 to 4 have not established by way of documentary evidence as to what exactly the dues of other subscribers are, for which the complainant herein stood as guarantor and if the notices have been sent to those subscriber for default and opp.parties have also not filed statement of account with respect to these defaulting subscribers except filing their Chit Agreements. Keeping in view that the very consent given by the complainant is only with respect to adjustment to KDTN 2/34 i.e. his wifes chit. (Ex.A5) and the opp.parties have not established by way of any documentary evidence that the complainant has given his consent for adjustment for other chits and also exactly as to what the amounts due from these other subscribers are, we are of the considered view that the opp.parties failed to establish that they are entitled to adjust these amounts to other lien chits when there is a discrepancy in the date of notice which itself is contradictory and moreover in the light of Ex.A5, the consent for adjustment towards other lien chits has not been established . Therefore we are of the view that the opposite party is liable to refund the amount paid by the complainant together with interest @ 9% p.a. from 20.7.2006. Keeping the facts and circumstances of the case in view, we are of the considered opinion that no further deductions are to be contemplated upon. Since interest has already been awarded by way of damages we do not see any substantial reason to award further compensation. Case against opposite parties 5 to 7 is dismissed without costs as no deficiency can be attributed to them.
Keeping the aforementioned reasons in view we are of the considered view that there is deficiency in service on behalf of opp.parties 1 to 4 and they are directed jointly and severally to pay to the complainant Rs.1,88,015/- with interest at 9% p.a. from 20.7.2006 till the date of realization together costs of Rs.10,000/-. Time for compliance four weeks. Case against opposite parties 5 to 7 is dismissed without costs.
PRESIDENT MEMBER Dt.10.6.2011 Pm* APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE Witnesses examined For Complainant For Opposite parties Affidavit of complainant filed Affidavit of Mr.Gantala Ramana Reddy(O.P.4) filed.
Affidavit of Mr.M.A.Basith Khan (O.P.5) filed Affidavit of Mr.B.Arvinda Reddy (O.P.6) filed .
Exhibits marked on behalf of the complainant:
Ex.A1-Copy of Account dated 20-7-2006.
Ex.A2-Copy of letter from complt. to opp.party .
Ex.A3-Copy of reply dated 27-12-2006.
Ex.A4-Copy of MRN dated 10-5-2006.
Ex.A5-Copy of letter dated 6-9-2006.
Ex.A6-Copy of fax dated 13-12-2006.
Ex.A7-Copy of fax dated 29-1-2007.
Ex.A8-Copy of letter dated 23-2-2007.
Ex.A9-Copy of letter dated 10-8-2007.
Ex.A10-Copy of Legal notice dated 29-12-2006.
Ex.A11-Copy of letter to Chief Justice dated 19-7-2007.
Ex.A12-Copy of challan dated 26-7-2006.
Ex.A13-Copy of Ledger dated 6-7-2006.
Ex.A14-Copy of Ledger dated 26-7-2006.
Ex.A15-Copy of Newspaper dated 16-2-2007 Ex.A16-Copy of Memo dated 23-7-2007.
Ex.A17-Copy of statement dated nil.
Ex.A18-Copy of Minutes dated 14-11-2006.
Ex.A19-Copy of fake challan and others dated 26-7-2006.
Ex.A20-Copy of Agreement of chit (fake) dated 17-2-2007 Ex.A21-Copy of correspondence dated 19-11-2007 Ex.A22-copy of challans dated nil Ex.A23-copy of Audit report dated 30-11-2007 Ex.A24-Copy of challan dated 16-2-2008 Ex.A25-copy of Audit report dated 14-2-2008.
Ex.A26-copy of first show cause dated 19-12-2007.
Ex.A27-Copy of reply by E.D. dated 27-12-2007.
Ex.A28-Copy of second show cause dated 2-1-2008 Ex.A29-Copy of challan dated nil Ex.A30-Copy of memo by C & I.G.dated 2-2-2008 Ex.A31-Copies of courier receipts dated nil.
Ex.A32-copy of Abstract dated 18-1-2007.
Exhibits marked by the opposite parties 1 to 4:
Ex.B1-Chit Membership cancellation notice dated 10-5-2006 Ex.B2-Letter of complainant to opposite party dated 6-9-2006 Ex.B3-Letter of complainant to opposite party dated 12-12-2006 Ex.B4-Legal notice of opposite party to complainant dated 27-12-2006.
Ex.B5-F.I.R. dated20-1-2007 Ex.B6-Copy of final report dated 20-1-2007 Ex.B7-Summons in C.C.No.522 of 2007 of Judl. First Class Magistrate dated 23-11-2007 Ex.B8-Order in C.C.No.522/2007 dated 17-11-2007.
Ex.B9-Order of Honble High Court in W.P.No.16757/2007 dt.21-1-2005.
Ex.B10-Order of Honble High Court in Cr. Petition No.7645/2007 dated 28-3-2008.
Ex.B11-Letter of opposite party to the District Registrar dated 29-1-2009 Ex.B12-Memo of Registration and Stamps Department, dated 16-1-2009.
Exhibits marked on behalf of opp.parties 5 to 7 Ex.B13-Letter of District Registrar to the Commissioner and Inspector General of Registration and Stamps dated 18-11-2007.
Ex.B14-Letter of District Registrar to the Commissioner and Inspector General of Registration and Stamps dated 30-11-2007.
Ex.B15-Letter of District Registrar to the Commissioner and Inspector General of Registration and Stamps dated 14-2-2008.
Ex.B16-Memo of the Commissioner & Inspector General of R & S, Dated 4-10-20 08.
Exhibits marked on behalf of the opp.parties 1 to 4 after remand of the case :
Ex.B17 : Chit agreement in KDLL 5/25 in favour of K.Madhu Ex.B18 : Chit Agreement in KDLJ 39/13 in favour of S.Gayatri Prasad.
Ex.B19 : Chit Agreement in KDTN 21/22 in favour of P.Vijayalaxmi Ex.B20 : Chit Agreement in KD LJ 39/07 in favour of Ch.Pavan Kumar Sarma Ex.B21 : Chit Agreement in KDTN 3/20 in favour of T.Srinivasa Rao Ex.B22 : Chit Agreement in KDTN 2/34 in favour of CH.Saritha.
PRESIDENT MEMBER Dt.10.6.2011 Pm*