State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Talla Naresh S/O Sutya Narayana vs Kapil Chits (Kosta) Pvt.Ltd., on 22 April, 2013
BEFORE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD F.A.No.279 OF 2012 AGAINST C.C.NO.285 OF 2011 DISTRICT FORUM-II VIJAYAWADA AT KRISHNA DISTRICT Between: Talla Naresh S/o Sutya Narayana Aged about 28 years, Service R/o D.No.1-322, Near Tirupatamma Temple Kanuru, Penamalur Mandal Krishna Dist. Appellant/complainant A N D Kapil Chits (Kosta) Pvt.Ltd., rep. by its Foremen, D.No.39-2-61, Opp.Y.V.Rao Hospital, Behind Chennupati Petrol Bund Labiipet, Vijayawada Respondent/opposite party Counsel for the Appellant M/s P.Anil Mukherji Counsel for the Respondent M/s N.Amarnath QUORUM: SRI R.LAKSHMINARASIMHA RAO, HONBLE MEMBER
AND SRI THOTA ASHOK KUMAR, HONBLE MEMBER MONDAY THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND THIRTEEN Oral Order (As per Sri R.Lakshminarasimha Rao, Honble Member) ***
1. The complainant is the appellant. He filed complaint claiming an amount of `99,800/- towards prize money and damages of `1,00,000/- and also costs. Against the order of the District Forum, the complainant has filed appeal contending that the chit agreement is opposed to law and that the respondent refused to release prize amount on the premise that the sureties furnished by the appellant are not local sureties and that the respondent refused to receive subscription with an intention to make the appellant a defaulter.
2. It is contended that the respondent issued letter threatening to cancel bid if the appellant failed to withdraw the prize amount and that the respondent refused to release the prize amount. It is contended that the District Forum has not even awarded costs.
3. The appellant joined in the chit group bearing reference noFVJT4F1-44with the respondent-chit fund company for the chit value of `1,50,000/- each and the monthly subscription payable is `3,000/- in duration of 50 months. The appellant joined the chit group in the month of December,2009.The appellant was declared successful bidder in the auction held in June,2011 as he agreed to forego an amount of `50,000/-. The appellant contended that the respondent had not released the prize amount without any reasonable cause and despite request made therefor. The respondent issued notice dated 24.08.2011 to cover up its illegal act. The appellant got issued notice on 2.09.2011 for release of bid amount.
4. The respondent-chit fund company resisted the claim on the premise that the appellant failed to furnish sureties within time and the respondent issued notice on 21.07.2008 in response to which the appellant furnished pay slips of two sureties who are railway employees as against the terms of chit agreement which provides for furnishing local government employees as sureties. The appellant had not submitted attestation certificates of the disbursing officer and failed to furnish three sureties. The respondent issued letter dated 24.08.2011 cancelling the bid and the appellant failed to pay future installments after filing the complaint.
5. The appellant filed his affidavit and the documents Exs.A1 to A5. On behalf of the respondent-chit fund company, its branch manager, Kolusu Ramanjaneyulu had filed his affidavit and the documents, Ex B1 to 4.
6. The District Forum allowed the complaint directing the respondent to release the bid amount on receiving sufficient sureties in terms of the chit agreement. The district Forum observed that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent as the appellant failed to furnish sufficient sureties as also he did not pay future installments.
7. The point for consideration is whether the appellant is entitled to the amount claimed by him?
8. The appellant had subscribed to the chit group series Nos. FVJT04F1-44 conducted by the appellant company. The value of each chit is `1,50,000/-. The monthly subscription for each chit is of `3,000/-/- payable in 50 months. The appellant participated in auction held in the month of July,2011 and having agreed to forego `50,200/- he was declared successful bidder. His grievance is that the respondent did not release bid amount even after his furnishing sureties therefor whereas the respondent contends that the appellant failed to furnish local government employees as sureties and he did not furnish sufficient number of sureties.
9. There can be no denial of the fact the appellant failed to furnish sureties within reasonable time after he was declared successful bidder in the auction. The respondent addressed letter dated 21.07.2011 to furnish sureties and after receiving the notice , the appellant submitted pay slips of two railway employees, Devaram Padma and M.Ramesh Babu. The respondent had not accepted the sureties as they are not local government employees. The respondent referred to Clause VII of the chit agreement which reads as follows:
Procedure for receiving the prize amount by prized subscriber;
1.
The prize amount will be paid to the Prized Subscriber at the Foremans office during office hours on working days through a crossed A/c Payee cheque. This will be done within one month of his/her furnishing documentary evidence proving his/.her source of income to pay future installments in time and also furnishing sufficient security for the due payment of future instalments and the security on inspection, scrutiny etc., is found to the satisfaction of the Foreman. Prized Subscribers, before drawing the chit amount must furnish necessary security or sureties to the satisfaction of the Foreman for due payment of the future instalments. The security may be any of the following where the future liability is Rs.3,00,000/- or less:
a) Three permanent local Government servants on submission of photo ID cards, computerized pay-slips/salary certificates with Disbursing Officer attestation, each drawing an unencumbered minimum monthly basic pay etc.,
10. Admittedly, the appellant did not submit attestation certificates issued by disbursing officer of the sureties. As per Clause VII of the chit agreement, the appellant has to furnish three local government employees as sureties. He had not furnished three sureties and the two sureties furnished by him are not local government employees. Therefore, the District Forum has rightly held that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent-chit fund company. In paragraph 8 of the order the District Forum held :
---the complainant participated in the auction conducted by the opposite party relating to his chit and auctioned the chit and agreed to forego for an amount of Rs.50,200/- out of Rs.1,50,000/-. But he failed to furnish three local government employees as sureties for his future liability as required under chit agreement. As the complainant failed to furnish sureties as per chit agreement, the opposite party did not release the bid amount to the complainant. If the complainant performs his obligation as per chit agreement in furnishing the sureties, the opposite party will release the bid amount. So we, hold that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party towards the complainant. The opposite party says that he has no objection to release the bid amount if the complainant furnished three local government employees as sureties as per chit agreement. The complainant is entitle to get his bid amount from the opposite party only after furnishing sureties as required under chit agreement.
11. For the foregoing reasons different from the one and on which the District Forum based its conclusion, we uphold the order passed by the District Forum. The appellant being negligent and having failed to furnish sureties as required by Clause VII of the Chit Agreement cannot attribute deficiency in service to the respondent. When there is no deficiency in service found
13. In the result, the appeal is dismissed confirming the order of the District Forum. There shall be no order as to costs.
Sd/-
MEMBER Sd/-
MEMBER Dt.22.04.2013 కె.ఎం.కె*