Chairman, Shriram Group Of Companies & Ors vs Konakanchi Madhu & Ors

Prem Narain, Presiding Member

This first appeal has been filed by the appellants Chairman, Shrriram Group of Companies & Ors. against the order dated 10.6.2011 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Andhra Pradesh, (in short 'the State Commission') passed in CC No.36 of 2008.

Brief facts of the case are that the respondent became a member of a Chit of Rs.5,00,000/- and he paid Rs.5,000/- as instalment per month. It is the case of the complainant that after paying 34 instalments his membership was terminated by the opposite parties/appellants without any reason and the opposite parties did not accept further instalments. The opposite parties informed that the membership of the complainant was rightly cancelled and the registration department was also informed. The complainant inquired from the registration department, it was told that there was no cancellation recorded in the registration department. He then filed the complaint before the State Commission. The complaint was resisted by the opposite parties/appellants herein. The State Commission vide its order dated 10.06.2011 directed the opposite parties No.1 to 4 jointly and severally to pay Rs.1,88,015/- to the complainant with interest @9% p.a. from 20.7.2006 till the date of realization together with cost of Rs.10,000/-.

Hence the present appeal.

Heard the learned counsel for the appellants as well as the respondent in person. Learned counsel for the appellants stated that the respondent was an agent of the appellant company and therefore, he cannot file complaint against the appellants as there is relationship of principal and agent. An agent cannot file complaint against the principal. Apart from this, learned counsel stated that the State Commission did not have the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as the total amount involved along with interest was not more than Rs.5,00,000/-. This point was also raised in their written statement, however, the State Commission has not considered the same. Thus, the order passed by the State Commission is without jurisdiction.

It was further stated by the learned counsel for the appellants that the respondent has written letter to the company that he is ready to pay the amount due on him. Clearly, there was some amount due on him as agent, which he accepted himself. Thus, he is not entitled to Rs.1,88,015/-.

On the other hand, respondent in person stated that apart from being agent of the opposite party company, he was also a member of a Chit of Rs.5,00,000/-. After paying 34 instalments his membership was unauthorisedly cancelled by the opposite parties and at that time an amount of Rs.1,88,015/- was to be refunded by the company. The complaint has been filed in the capacity of member of a Chit and not as agent of the company. He further stated that the letter referred to by the learned counsel for the appellants is a forged letter and the original has never been brought before any forum. Later on, the opposite parties stated that the original was lost. Neither any amount due on the complainant is mentioned in this letter, nor opposite parties are able to tell any such amount.

I have given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by both the sides and have examined the record. Learned counsel for the appellants has raised the issue of pecuniary jurisdiction as the amount involved was below Rs.5,00,000/-. It is seen from the complaint that complainant had demanded more than Rs.20,00,000/-. Thus, prima facie there was no bar for the State Commission to entertain this complaint, however, the State Commission should have examined this aspect when the same was raised in the written statement filed by the appellants/opposite parties. As the matter has been decided on merits by the State Commission and apparently complaint was filed for an amount more than Rs.20,00,000/-, I do not see any point to set aside the order of the State Commission on this ground and remand the matter to the State Commission for deciding the complaint afresh because already period of 11 years has passed since the complaint was filed. It is to be seen whether any injustice has been done to the appellants. There is no denying the fact that an amount of Rs.1,88,015/- was due to be paid to the complainant by the opposite parties. The opposite parties may dispute this amount on the basis of the letter allegedly written by the complainant for adjusting the amount due on him. The State Commission has recorded that the opposite parties have not been able to tell exact amount that was to be adjusted. The letter on which the opposite parties are relying also does not indicate any such amount. Moreover, even during the arguments learned counsel for the opposite parties could not tell the amount that was to be adjusted and she stated that this information was not available on record. The opposite parties must be keeping accounts of all the agents and therefore, they should have been able to clearly tell the amount that was to be adjusted. On the other hand, letter allegedly written by the complainant has been disputed by the complainant, who states that this a forged letter and the opposite parties have not been able to file the original letter. Clearly, in these circumstances, it cannot be assumed that there was any amount to be adjusted against Rs.1,88,015/-, which was to be paid to the complainant. Thus, I do not see any injustice having been done to the opposite parties except the order for the refund of Rs.1,88,015/-, which is actually the money of the complainant. So, in fact, no injustice has been done to the opposite parties.

Based on the above discussion, I do not see any merit in the First Appeal No.307 of 2011 filed by the appellants. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.