State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Shriram Chits Tamilnadu P Ltd., ... vs S.V.Marimuthu,Thanjavur Dist on 8 July, 2022
1
IN THE CIRCUIT BENCH OF THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MADURAI.
PRESENT: THIRU.N. RAJASEKAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER
F.A.No.66/2015
(Against the order made in C.C.No.31/2014 dated 28.05.2015 on the file of
the District Forum, Thanjavur.)
FRIDAY, THE 08th DAY OF JULY 2022
1. Shriram Chits Tamilnadu(P) Limited,
K.P.R.Tower,
Railway Station Road,
Pattukottai,
Thanjavur District. 1st Appellant/1st Opposite Party
2. Shriram Chits Tamilnadu(P) Limited,
H.O.Accounts Wing Sorrento Building,
No.6 L.B.Road, Adayar,
Chennai - 600 020. 2nd Appellant/2nd Opposite Party
-Vs-
S.V.Marimuthu,
S/o S.Veeraiyan,
4/27 Moovendhar Medical,
Main Road, Papanadu - 614 626,
Orathanadu Taluk,
Thanjavur District. Respondent/Complainant
Counsel for Appellants-1&2/Opp.parties-1&2 : M/s.V.Sitharanjandoss, Advocate.
Counsel for Respondent-1/Complainant : Jacob & Jacob Associates.
This appeal coming before me for final hearing on 24.06.2022 and upon
perusing the material records, this Commission made the following:-
2
ORDER
THIRU.N. RAJASEKAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER.
1. This appeal has been filed by the appellants/opposite parties under section 15 read with section 17(1) (a) (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order of the learned District Forum, Thanjavur made in C.C.No.31/2014, dated 28.05.2015, partly allowing the complaint.
2. For the sake of convenience and brevity, the parties are referred to here as they stood arrayed in the learned District Consumer Disputes Redresssal Forum, Thanjavur.
3. The opposite parties suffering by an order, directing the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- remitted by the complainant in the name of his wife in group No.53047, Rs.40,000/- each remitted by him in group No.70002, in group No.70002 in ticket No. 8 and 9 respectively with interest at the rate of 24 % per annum from 01.01.2004 to till the date of payment as the first installment had been remitted in April 2013 itself and also further directed the opposite parties to pay sum of Rs.30,000/- to the complainant towards compensation for mental agony and hardship caused to him owing to their negligence and deficiency of service and to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- towards cost to the complainant in the hands of the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thanjavur (hereinafter referred to as District Forum), has preferred this appeal before this Commission.
4. The case of the complaint is as follows:- The complainant is that he became a subscriber of the chits conducted by the opposite parties and he subscribed to two chits of Rs.1,50,000/- each and another chits for Rs.1,00,000/- in the name of his wife totaling three chits and he had paid eight months subscription 3 from 12.04.2013 to 31.12.2013. On 07.01.2014 one G.Arasu of the first opposite party contacted over phone and invited him to bid in the auction and as there were no bidders the auction, was confirmed in his favour and he was asked to come on the next day on 08.01.2014 when his signatures were obtained in many registers and for disbursement of the amount they insisted that two Government servants should be the sureties for him. Accordingly he took one Arul working in the Police Department but the opposite parties refused to accept him as surety and said that they would not accept any officials from the Police Department or Revenue Department. When the complainant questioned them that why they have failed to make mention of the condition that the subscriber should furnish two Government servants as sureties at the time of receiving the bid amount in the various advertisements made by them in many dailies and even in the pass books given to them. They gave evasive reply that they would impose the condition only at the time of disbursement of the bid amount. It is sheer deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties when the complainant expressed his inability to secure six Government servants as sureties for the said three chits two in his name and another in the name of his wife, the opposite parties demanded any LIC bond as security and on the complainants' pointing out that he had not come to them for getting a loan but only to bid in the auction of the amount already subscribed by him, the said agent Arasu and the Branch Manager told him that he would send for him after consultation with his authorities . But even after three months they had not contacted him and the complainant sent a registered notice on 19.04.2014. The complainant sent the registered notice to the opposite party who have not responded with any reply or by compliance with the payment to the complainant. 4 The complainant therefore prays for an order to direct the opposite parties to pay the sum of Rs.4,00,000/- the loss caused by way of bid amount, Rs.80,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony and hardship caused to him and to pay Rs.6000/- towards cost of his litigation.
5. The written version filed by the opposite parties are as follows: As per the rules under the chit transaction the successful bidder should fill up the application form for getting the bid amount and it should have been signed by two Government servants as sureties for the prompt repayment of the amount by the subscriber and the said sureties were also to produce their identity card and the pay certificate. The complainant having failed to cause the production of the identity card and the pay certificate of them is not entitled to maintain this complaint, as there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. Further, the complainant has already subscribed one chit for Rs.25,000/- in the name of his wife and therefore he was very well aware of the condition of furnishing the two sureties for the disbursement of the amount by the complainant. The complaint is therefore liable to be dismissed.
6. The Learned District Forum, after taking into account of the evidences adduced by both parties, had held that the opposite parties committed deficiency in service by insisting the complainant to furnish two Government Servants to each chit as sureties for disbursing the bid amount is not at all justifiable and reasonable in view of their failure to disclose that condition to the subscribers of their chit prior to their admission and registration in their chit and directing the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- remitted by the complainant in the name of his wife in group No.53047, Rs.40,000/- each remitted by him in group No.70002, in group No.70002 5 in ticket No. 8 and 9 respectively with interest at the rate of 24 % per annum from 01.01.2004 to till the date of payment as the first installment had been remitted in April 2013 itself and also further directed the opposite parties to pay sum of Rs.30,000/- to the complainant towards compensation for mental agony and hardship caused to him owing to their negligence and deficiency of service and to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- towards cost to the complainant.
7. Being aggrieved against that order the opposite parties challenging it by filing the appeal stating that the dispute is between the Chit Funds and prized subscriber and in such circumstances, the same has to be resolved only under section 65 of the Tamilnadu Chits Funds Act and there cannot be any deficiency in service by the appellants. The complainant is entitled to chit amount only on production of sureties/security to the satisfaction of the Foreman and he has not entitled to the chit amount, if any failure on the part of the complainant in producing sureties/security and the Foreman is entitled for re-auctioning. In the absence of proof of ready in producing the sureties/security, the appellants' silent in not giving reply to the notice cannot be branded as deficiency in service. The payment of future amount was in huge and there must be a hold on the appellants for recovering their dues. The subscriber may simply walk away with prized chit amount and non-payment of future installments may lead to a loss to the appellants. The pass books are issued at the time of joining in chit group and the same may not contain the particulars relating to sureties. Only he became a successful bidder, the procedure in producing the sureties/security will be considered. Therefore, the appeal may be allowed to set aside the District Forum order.
6
8. The respondent/complainant remained absent no written arguments was filed on the side of respondent and the arguments on the side of respondent was closed. During the pendency of the appeal after filing of written arguments on the side of appellants the counsel for the appellants filed a memo informing the dispute between the parties was settled by issuing a cheque for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- in the name of the complainant and the same was debited in account belongs to the opposite party. The first opposite party filed the memo before this Commission in the absence of appearance of the complainant and his counsel on record. The memo was rejected on the ground of invalid documents. After rejection of the memo the counsel made an endorsement that their written arguments may be treated as oral arguments on 23.06.2022. On 24.06.2022 the counsel for the appellant presented another memo informing the settlement with a letter for dispensing the appearance of the complainant the above memo was called before this Commission at 01.10 P.M. the counsel on record not present. A person appears before this Commission said to be he is the complainant informing to record his appearance prior to the date of actual hearing date. The person was directed to appear on actual hearing date (tomorrow-24.06.2022) since, no document was produced for perusal, on 24.06.2022 the counsel for the appellants ready for arguments and made an endorsement the written arguments may be treated as oral arguments and the appeal is reserved for orders. Since, the settlement arrived between the parties out of Commission could not be properly recorded.
9. No additional evidences were adduced by both parties in this appeal before this Commission.
10. Point for consideration is;-
7
Whether the order passed by the Learned District Forum, Thanjavur in C.C.No.31/2014, dated 28.05.2017 is sustainable under law or not?
11. Point: The complainant subscribes two chits of Rs.1,50,000/- each and another chit for Rs.1,00,000/- in the name of his wife totally three chits and he had paid eight month subscription from 12.04.2013 to 31.12.2013. He participated in the bid in auction, in the absence of no other bidders the auction was confirmed in his favour at the time disbursal of the bid amount to the complainant the opposite parties demanded each two sureties for three chits. And also the opposite parties informed the sureties must be Government servants. The above condition was not disclosed by the opposite party at the time of registration of chits. Initially the complainant has taken an official from Police Department and the opposite parties refused to accept the surety on the ground that the officials working in the Police Department or in the Revenue Department sureties could not be accepted. Subsequently, the complainant took one Rajalingam, Assistant Veterinary Doctor in the Veterinary Department doctor as the surety the opposite parties refused to accept by insisting a senior officer may be stands as a surety. When the complainant expressed his difficulty he could not secured six Government Servants as sureties. The opposite parties demanded to pledge any LIC bond with them. Subsequently the complainant filed the consumer complaint.
12. The learned District Forum had held that the opposite parties committed deficiency in service for insisting the complainant to furnish two Government servants each chits as sureties for the disbursal of bid amount is not at all justifiable and reasonable, and also they have failed to disclose the condition to the subscribers at the time of their admission in the chits. The complainant also pointed out the 8 above condition has not been mentioned in Ex.A4 to Ex.A6 the documents issued by the opposite parties to their subscribers. The opposite parties also admitted that the above documents are not the contingent since, they have demanded only at the time of disbursal of the bid amount.
13. The counsel for the appellants raised a contention that the dispute should be disposed of only under Section 65 of the Tamilnadu Chit Funds Act. Under Section 3 of Consumer Protection Act it is an additional relief there is no expressed bar for entertaining the disputes between the parties arose in a chit transaction. Therefore, the contention raised by the counsel for the appellant is not sustainable.
14. Another contention raised by the counsel for the appellants is the complainant's wife received the prize money payment. He is well aware of the chit funds procedure while joining the chit. The complainant was informed about the submission of sureties to receive the prize money payment. The above contention is also not sustainable in the absence of any terms and any particular in Ex.A4 to Ex.A6 the documents issued by the opposite parties at the time of enrollment. The counsel for the appellants relied upon the citation order passed by the Madras High Court in W.P.No.174/1986 and the G.O. issued by the Tamilnadu State Government. Both are irrelevant to the dispute. When the opposite parties failed to convey the terms of production of sureties at the time of enrolment it amounts deficiency in service on their part. The learned District Forum also rightly held the above point and the same is sustainable under law and answered accordingly for the point for consideration. 9
15. In the result, the appeal is dismissed by confirming the order of the learned District Forum, Thanjavur made in C.C.No.31/2014, dated 28.05.2015. In addition the appellants/opposite parties are directed to pay additional cost of Rs.2000/- to the respondent/complainant in this appeal.
Dictated to the Steno-typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by me on this the 08th day of July 2022.
Sd/-xxxxxxxxxx N. RAJASEKAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER.