State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
1.Kapil Chits Hyderabad Pvt Ltd., vs Mr. E. Viswagnachary on 27 May, 2022
1
BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION: HYDERABAD.
FA.NO.47/2019
AGAINST ORDERS IN CC.NO.289/2016 ON THE FILE OF
DISTRICT CONSUMER COMMISSION-III, HYDERABAD
Between:
1. Kapil Chits (Hyderabad) Pvt. Ltd.,
West Marredpally Branch,
D.No.10-2-192/A,
Second Floor, Street No.6,
Road No.1, West Marredpally,
Secunderabad,
Telangana State.
2. M/s. Kapil Chits (Hyderabad) Pvt. Ltd.,
D.No.3-6-9/10, 1st Floor,
Above Corporation Bank,
Vivekanandanagar, Kukatpally,
Hyderabad.
3. Mr. Sunil Reddy,
Representative of
Kapil Chits (Hyderabad) Pvt. Ltd.,
D.No.3-6-9/10, 1st Floor,
Above Corporation Bank,
Vivekanandanagar, Kukatpally,
Hyderabad. Appellants
And
Mr. E.Viswagnachary,
Sri E.Ananthachary,
Aged about 42 years,
Occupation: Private Service,
R/o. 1-3-527,
Near Gandi Maisamma
Temple,
Kawadiguda,
Secunderabad-500080.
Respondent
Counsel for the Appellant
:
Counsel for the RespondentM/s.K.Vijayender Reddy
: Mr. E.
Viswagnachary [PIP]
QUORUM: HON'BLE SRI K.RANGA RAO, MEMBER-
(J) HON'BLE SMT R.S. RAJESHREE, MEMBER (NJ) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF MAY TWO THoUSAND TWENTY Two (Per Hon'ble Smt. R. Rajeshree, Member-Non Judicial) Order 2 . T h i s is an appeal filed under Section-15 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 preferred by the Opposite Party aggrieved by the order of the District Consumer Forum-1I, Hyderabad in CC.No.289/2015 dated 02.01.2019 and by allowing the complaint in part and directing the Opposite Party Nos.1 to 3 jointly and severally to:
(1) refund a sum of Rs.80,000/-(Rupees Eighty only) to the complainant.
(2) pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) and cost of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees five thousand only) Time for compliance is 30 (Thirty) days only. If the Opposite Parties No. 1 to 3 fail to comply the order within the stipulated time, the above amount of Rs.80,000/-
shall carry interest at the rate of 7% per annum till realization.
2 For the sake of convenience, the parties are arrayed as in the complaint before the District Consumer Commission.
3. The grievance of the complainant is that lured by the Opposite Party No.3, who is the agent of the Opposite Party Nos.1 & 2 he has joined chit of the Opposite Party Company vide Chit a bearing No.FTT03G1-5 and the value of the chit was Rs.2,50,000/- and the monthly installment being Rs.5,000/- and the period of chit was 50 months.
Wherein he was the chit would be knocked in his promised that favour in the very second month of joining. But however, the chit was not knocked in hi_ favour until 13th month of joining i.e., September, 2013 and that inspite of furnishing sureties the Opposite Party failed to pay the prize money to him. But he had continued paying the subscription amount till December, 2013 and inspite of several requests and representations the Opposite Party failed to pay the prize money vexed by the attitude of the Opposite Party and loosing all hopes he decided to withdraw from the chit and got issued a legal notice on 25.06.2015 demanding the paid amount the Opposite Party received the said legal notice and had given all evasive replies based on false and baseless allegations and that they do not have 3 any habit of giving an acknowledgment when the sureties are furnished and taking advantage of the same, they exploited tne consumers such as the present complainant. And that the Opposite Party had taken signatures on blank format and are using the same against him. And that he had paid the subscription amount for the chit till December, 2013 which comes up to Rs.80,000/- as such seeking refund of the same along with compensation.
4. The Opposite Party while admitting the joining of the company of chit bearing NO.FTTO3G1-5 had pleaded that they had never promised to knock the chit in the second month of the commencement of the chit and that as per procedure an auction is conducted every month and the successful highest bidder will be paid the chit amount. And the chit was confirmed in the name of the complainant only on 28.08.2013 where in the complainant has forgone Rs. 1,00,000/-and he was supposed to furnish the sureties to receive prize amount. But the complainant failed to do so. As such on 09.10.2013 they got issued a letter to the complainant requesting him to furnish the sureties. But there was no response from the complainant.
5. The Opposite party further pleads that the complainant had paid the installment amount only till 10th October, 2013 and had not paid till December, 2013. The Opposite party further pleads that on 24.10.2013 they addressed a letter to the complainant intimating that the bid will be cancelled if he fails to furnish the sureties, after receipt of the said letter, the complainant approached in person and agreed for cancellation of his chit by way of a letter dated 21.04.2014 and as the complainant failed to furnish the sureties having no other alternative this Opposite Party had conducted a re-auction on 28.11.2013 and confirmed the same infavour of other chit subscriber for loss Rs.70,000/- for which there is a bid fall of Rs.30,000/- which is liable to be paid by the complainant and the complainant is also liable to pay a 5% Foremen Commission which comes up to 12,500/- and Rs.268/- towards incidental charges and that the net contribution of the complainant is only complainant.
as claimed by the Rs.56,700/- and not Rs.80,000/- issued.a letter Party deductions the Opposite above Basing on the is entitled the amount 19.03.2014 intimating the complainant on after the termination of and that the s a m e will be paid to him only inview of the further pleads that the chit the Opposite Party the 15.09.2008 1982 that came into amended Chit Fund Act, Consumer entertain the District Commission has no jurisdiction to Complaint.
before the District Commission-
6. During the course of enquiry marked Ex.Al to III in order to prove his case the complainant got Sri N.Vinay Sagar Reddy A3 and on behalf of the Opposite parties to B6.
has deposed as RW1 and got marked Exs.B1 after considering the
7. The District Consumer Commission No.CC material available on record allowed the complaint bearing the orders as 289/2016 by orders dated 02.01.2019 and passed mentioned supra.
said order the Appellant preferred the
8. Aggrieved by the that:
present appeal on the following grounds
(i) The learned District Consumer Commission failed to came into appreciate the fact that ever since Chit Fund Act, 1982 force with effect from 15.09.2008 repealing the A.P. Chit Fund between the subscriber and the Act, 1971 all the disputes Foreman or vice versa shall be referred to Arbitration under Section 64 of the said Act and the same shall be decided by a Registrar whose decision thereon shall be final.
(i). The learned District Commission ought to have disbelieved that Opposite Party No.3 had promised to get the chit knocked in favour of the complainant in the second month of commencement as none of the chit fund companies give such assurances and the procedure followed by them is as that of an auction conducted.
(ii) The District Commission had also failed to consider that the complainant had not filed any proof to show that he has furnished the sureties.
(iv). The learned District Commission ought to have seen that there is no deficiency on the part of the Appellant nor they have adopted any unfair trade practice and that they have followed the terms of the chit agreement.
9. And prayed that the Appeal be allowed and the District Consumer Commission order be set aside.
10. The points that arise for consideration are that:
1. Whether the Impugned order as passed by the District Commission suffers from any error or irregularity or whether it is liable to be set aside, modified or interfered with in any manner?
2. To what relief ?
11. Point No. 1:The main point that arises for consideration is whether the learned District Forum is justified in directing to refund the sum ofRs.80,000/-
As seen from Ex.Al and as admitted by the Opposite Party the complainant had paid only Rs.56,700/- and not Rs.80,000/-
claimed by him. And as per Ex.A1 though the cumulative total paid comes up to Rs.80,000/- but the complainant had paid only Rs.56,700/- ie., after deducting the dividends, and as per chit agreement the complainant had agreed to receive 5% less of chit amount, for better understanding a portion of the said clause is extracted here under:
A removed subscriber is entitled to the amount actually subscribed by him, ie., exclusive of dividends, less 5% of the chit amount towards damages for breach of contract. This amount is payable on application at the end of the chit period or earlier, if the vacaney substituted.
12. As such the appellant/ Opposite party is entitled to only deduct the 5% of chit amount as per the chit agreement and nothing more than that under different heads such as bid fall amount or breach of contract charges.
13. In such case the complainant is entitled for only Rs.56,700/- minus 5% of chit amount which comes up to 6 t the Appellant Rs.44,200/, so the impugned order directing refund Rs.80,000/- is improper and needs to be modified.
14. Coming to the compensation part the complainant though the pleaded that he had furnished the sureties but failed to prove addressed same, but the fact remains that the Opposite party had a letter dated 24.10.2013 to the complainant with regard to the removal from chit and intimating the amount that the complainant is entitled but till date the admitted amount is also not handed over to the complainant, even if the condition that the amount will be paid only after the completion ofthe chit period i.e., 28.10.2016 is taken into consideration the Appellant/ Opposite Party should have come forward by either handing it over to the complainant or depositing it in the court, but Appellant / Opposite Party failed to do so and made the complainant/ respondent run around the courts. Which is unfair and the condition that the complainant has to bear the bid fall charges is also unfair, as such we conclude that the Opposite Party had adopted unfair trade practice by withholding the hard earned money of the complainant since December, 2013 as such certainly the complainant is entitled for compensation as such some modifications in the compensation part of the impugned order is also necessary.
In view of the above discussions the Appeal is liable to be disposed of with certain modifications.
15. Point No. 2: In the result, the appeal is disposed of modifying the order of the District Consumer Commission as under
1. The Appellant / Opposite Party is directed to refund Rs.44,200/- to the Respondent / Complainant.
2. To pay a compensation of Rs.20,000/- and Rs.10,000/- towards costs of litigation.
3. The default clause in the District forum order shall remain unmodified.
The Appeal is accordingly disposed of. Time for compliance is 30 days.
-
6Rs.44,200/-, so the impugned order directing the Appellantto refund Rs.80,000/- is improper and needs to be modified.
14. Coming to the compensation part the complainant thougn pleaded that he had furnished the sureties but failed to prove the same, but the fact remains that the Opposite party had addressed a letter dated 24.10.2013 to the complainant with regard to the removal from chit and intimating the amount that the complainant is entitled but till date the admitted amount is also not handed over to the complainant, even if the condition that the amount will be paid only after the completion of the chit period ie., 28.10.2016 is taken into consideration the Appellant/ Opposite Party should have come forward by either handing it over to the complainant or depositing it in the court, but Appellant / Opposite Party failed to do so and made the complainant / respondent run around the courts. Which is unfair and the condition that the complainant has to bear the bid fall charges is also unfair, as such we conclude that the Opposite Party had adopted unfair trade practice by withholding the hard earned money of the complainant since December, 2013 as such certainly the complainant is entitled for compensation as such some modifications in the compensation part of the impugned order is also necessary.
In view of the above discussions the Appeal is liable to be disposed of with certain modifications.
15. Point No. 2: In the result, the appeal is disposed of modifying the order of the District Consumer Commission as under:
1. The Appellant / Opposite Party is directed to refund Rs.44,200/-to the Respondent / Complainant. 2 To pay a compensation of Rs.20,000- and Rs.10,000/- towards costs of litigation.
3. The default clause in the District forum order shall remain unmodified.
The Appeal is accordingly disposed of. Time for compliance is 30 days.