State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Branch Manager, Tenali vs Kondareddy Chandra Kumar Guntur. on 25 March, 2013
BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : HYDERABAD F.A.No.684/2011 against C.C.No.149/2010, Dist.Forum, Guntur. Between: The Branch Manager, Sriram Chits (P) Limited, Tenali. Appellant/ Opposite party And Kondareddy Chandra Kumar, S/o.late K.Varam, Dept. of Political Science and Public Administration, Acharya Nagarjuna University, Guntur. . .. Respondent/ Complainant Counsel for the appellant : M/s.K.R.R.Associates Counsel for the Respondent : Mr.K.Sridhar Rao QUORUM:SMT.M.SHREESHA,HONBLE INCHARGE PRESIDENT, AND SRI S.BHUJANGA RAO, HONBLE MEMBER
MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF MARCH, TWO THOUSAND THIRTEEN.
Oral Order:
(per Sri S.Bhujanga Rao, Honble Member) **** This appeal is directed against the order dt.3.6.2011 on the file of District Forum, Guntur Dist. passed in C.C.No.149/2010. The appellant is the opposite party and the respondent is the complainant in C.C.No.149/2010 .
For the sake of convenience, the parties are described as arrayed in the complaint.
The brief case of the complainant as arrayed in the complaint is as follows:
The complainant K.Chandra Kumar joined as subscriber of chit bearing no.
T-NLO-1/21 for Rs.5 lakhs spread over for 40 months at Rs.12,500/- per month, after deduction of dividends in every instalment. The said chit was commenced on 20.9.2001. The complainant paid 40 instalments to the opposite party, without fail, as per the rules of chit transaction. The complainant paid the last instalment on 12.12.2004. The last auction date is on 12.12.2004.
After auction is over on 12.12.2004, the opposite party Branch Manager has to pay the chit amount, to the subscriber within 30 days, from the last auction date, as per the rules.
But the opposite party did not pay any amount and the opposite party kept aside the said amount of Rs.4,75,000/- in his custody. After several requests made by the complainant to pay the amount, the opposite party Branch Manager, Tenali branch sent a demand draft for Rs.1,57,150/- dt.12.5.2009. The complainant did not draw the above said amount of Rs.1,57,150/- from the demand draft, as there was no proper reply for the difference in the chit amount.
The complainant put to lot of hardship, humiliation and suffered lot on account of indifferent attitude of the opposite party Branch Manager, Tenali Branch. The complainant is also subjected to mental agony. Hence the complainant filed the complaint against the opposite parties seeking direction to refund the bid amount of Rs.4,75,000/- with interest from the date of auction i.e. 12.12.2004 and then to deduct the amount of Rs.2,05,000/- which was attached by the Court, Chirala in O.S.No.67/2004 as per the order in I.A.No.158/2005 and to pay the balance amount to the complainant, and to pay costs of the complaint.
Resisting the complaint, the opposite party filed counter contending that the complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of Consumer Protection Act and there is no consumer dispute. This opposite party admitted that the complainant subscribed a chit in the opposite partys branch at Tenali bearing ticket no.TMLO 1/21. The value of the said chit being Rs.5 lakhs to be subscribed @ Rs.12,500/- for 40 months. The complainant became successful bidder in the auction and agreed to forego Rs.25,000/- out Rs.5 akhs and the opposite party has to pay the prize amount of Rs.4,75,000/- to the complainant.
The opposite party further contended that the complainant stood as surety in chits with Bapatla Branch and suits in O.S.No.261/2004 and O.S.No.190/2004 on the file of Jr.Civil Judges Court, Bapatla were filed.
The complainant also stood as surety in chit with Chirala branch and a suit in O.S.No.67/2004 on the file of Junior Civil Judges Court, Chirala was filed. He also stood as surety to one K.Suresh Kumar in 38015/19 of Bapatla Branch. The dues payable by the complainant are to a tune of Rs.3,17,608/-. The opposite party addressed several letters including letters dt.20.10.2006 and 19.12.2006 to the complainant, requesting him to come and receive the cheque for the balance amount, but the complainant having received the said letters did not turn up, finally the opposite party sent a demand draft for Rs.1,57,150/- dt.12.5.2009. Thus, no amount is payable by the opposite party, to the complainant and the amount of Rs.3,17,608/- has been deducted from the prize amount, as per the Court orders and other dues as stated above.
Therefore the complaint is liable to be dismissed with costs.
During the course of enquiry, in order to prove his case, the complainant filed Exs.A1 to A5. On behalf of the opposite party Exs.B1 to B12 were marked .
Upon hearing the counsel for both the parties and on consideration of material on record, the District Forum allowed the complaint in part, directing the opposite party as follows:
1. to pay Rs.1,83,010/- together with interest @ 12% p.a. from 13.5.2009 till realisation.
2. to pay interest only on Rs.4,75,000/- @ 12% p.a. from 1.1.2005 to 25.4.2006, interest @ 12% p.a. on Rs.2,05,210/- from 26.4.2006 to 17.3.08 (Ex.B3) , interest @ 12% p.a. on 1,90,010/- from 18.3.08 to 12.5.09
3. to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards compensation and Rs.2000/- towards costs.
4. amounts ordered above shall be paid within a period of six weeks, from the date of receipt of the copy of the order.
Aggrieved by the said order, the opposite party preferred the above appeal urging that the order of the District Forum is contrary to law, facts and circumstances of the case. That the District Forum erred in not finding that the complainant is not a consumer and that there is no consumer dispute. That the District Forum failed to consider Ex.B12 copy of the Agreement of Chit and that the said agreement is binding on both the parties and that the appellant/opposite party has lien over the amount due to it by the prized subscriber either as principal debtor or as surety to other prized subscribers. That the District Forum erred in awarding interest at 12% p.a. That the District Forum failed to appreciate the fact, that there are no bonafides in filing the complaint, by the respondent/complainant and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the appellant-company, at any point of time, much less in repudiating the death claim under the policy. It is finally prayed to allow the appeal setting aside the impugned order.
We heard the counsel for both the parties and perused the entire material on record.
Now the point for consideration is whether the impugned order of the District Forum is vitiated by misappreciation of fact or law?
Admittedly the complainant is a subscriber of the chit conducted by the opposite party and the Foreman of the opposite party is collecting the commission charges for every chit, as per law. In view of these admitted facts, the complainant falls within the definition of Consumer as defined under Section 2(1)(d) of Consumer Protection Act.
Therefore, we do not see any grounds to interfere with the finding of the District Forum that the complainant is a Consumer within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act. Therefore we reject the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant/opposite party that the complainant is not a Consumer within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act.
It is an admitted fact that the complainant subscribed a chit in the opposite party branch at Tenali, bearing Ticket no.T-NLO-1/21 and that the value of the said chit was Rs.5 lakhs, spread over to 40 months, at Rs.12,500/- per month and that the chit commenced on 20.9.2001 and that the date of termination of chit was 20.1.2005. It is also not in dispute that the complainant paid all the 40 monthly subscriptions. It is also an admitted fact that the complainant became a prized subscriber for Rs.4,75,000/- .
Ex.B12 is the copy of the Agreement of Chit dt.31.10.2001 between the complainant and opposite party. Clause 17(b to d ) of Ex.B12 deals with the lien over the amounts. A perusal of clause 17(b to d) of Ex.B12 revealed that the opposite party has lien over the amount, due to it by a prized subscriber either as a principal debtor or surety for other subscribers. It is therefore obvious that the opposite party has got right to exercise general lien as stated above.
The fact that the complainant paid the last instalment on 12.12.2004 is not denied by the opposite party. Infact the opposite party admitted in its written version, that the complainant paid 40 instalments to the opposite party. In the written version the opposite party admitted that it has to pay prize amount of Rs.4,75,000/- to the complainant.
The contention of the opposite party is that the complainant stood as surety in 2 chits with Bapatla branch and another chit at Chirala branch and that the opposite party filed suits on the file of Jr.Civil Judge Court, Bapatla, as well as Chirala, against the subscriber of the chit and the sureties, including the complainant herein and got attached amounts of Rs.15,131/- 35,846/-
2,33,944/-. In total complainant is due to pay Rs.3,17,608/- including the above said attached amounts . After deducting this amount from the prize amount of Rs.4,75,000/-, the opposite party sent a demand draft for Rs.1,57,150/- in favour of the complainant. Thus, no amount is payable by the opposite party, to the complainant. As stated above, it is beyond doubt established, that the complainant has paid all the 40 instalments. Infact the opposite party itself admitted the same. In such a case how the opposite party could claim a sum of Rs.24,937/- as amount due by the complainant in Chit no.TMLO 1/21. The opposite party has not placed any record, as to how they arrived at that figure, likewise, a sum of Rs.750/- towards the documentation charges alleged to have been incurred by the opposite party. Therefore, the District Forum rightly rejected the contention of the opposite party, that the complainant was due a sum of Rs.24,937 and a sum of Rs.750/-.
It is the case of both the parties, that the complainant became the prized subscriber in the last instalment and therefore the complainant is entitled to the chit amount of Rs.5 lakhs - Rs.25,000/- ( towards foremans commission @ 5%). As stated above the last instalment was paid on 12.12.2004. The opposite party has to pay the prize amount to the complainant atleast by 31.12.2004 by sending the DD for the said amount. It appears that the opposite party intentionally waited to get the attachment order in O.S.No.67/2004. There can be nodoubt, that the opposite party can exercise lien over the amount due by the subscriber either as a borrower or guarantor to others, by virtue of Clause 17(b to d) of Ex.B12, but the opposite party has to exercise such lien fairly. The opposite party in this case has not given any reasons for waiting to send amount till 12.5.2009 when he sent DD for a sum of Rs.1,57,150/- to the complainant. Under these circumstances, the complainant is justified in not accepting Ex.A5 DD dt.
12.5.2009. As rightly observed by the District Forum, the opposite party need not wait till the date mentioned in Ex.B1, B3, B4 and B6. Undoubtedly, withholding the amount for a considerable time and then exercising lien over the amount payable to the complainant by the opposite party, certainly amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice also Having regard to the above facts and circumstances, we do not find any grounds, much less, valid grounds, to interfere with the impugned order of the District Forum. Appeal therefore fails .
In the result, the appeal is dismissed confirming the order of the District Forum. The appellant/opposite party is directed to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- to the respondent/complainant towards the costs of the appeal. The opposite party is directed to comply with the order within four weeks.
INCHARGE PRESIDENT MEMBER Pm* Dt. 25.3.2013