CITY CHIT FUNDS PVT. LTD vs R.Kannan

THE opposite party the City Chit Funds Pvt. Ltd., against which an award has been passed is the ppellant.

THE complainant was a subscriber to 3 chits, each of Rs. 30,000/-, conducted by the opposite party, commencing from 4.2.1982. THE date of termination of the chits was 4.5-1990. One chit was prized in favour of the complainant for a sum of Rs. 21,000/- on 4.4.1985 and another chit was prized in his favour for a similar sum of Rs. 21,000/- on 4.12.1987. Towards the 3rd chit, he had paid a total subscription of Rs. 16,500/-. THE case of the complainant is that the opposite party did not pay the prized amounts. After several demands, the complainant received a sum of Rs. 5.000/- on 20.6.1990 and another sum of Rs. 19,637.50 on 18.1.1992, and no other amount was paid. After giving credit to the said amounts received, the opposite party is liable to pay a balance sum of Rs. 68,792.20 for the three chits. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, the complaint was filed for payment of the said sum of Rs. 68,792.20 and damages of Rs. 10,000/-. The opposite party contended in its written version that one Mr. Pushparajan was the Managing Director of the opposite-party Company, and as such and as the Foreman of the chits, he mismanaged the affairs of the Company. He was suspended from the office and a suit has been filed against him. It was unanimously agreed in a meeting of shareholders convened by the Board of Directors that by liquidating the assets of the Company, the Company would be able to pay only 50% of the money remitted by the shareholders. The complainant/claimant also agreed to receive 50% of the money paid by him. Pursuant to that, a sum of Rs. 5,000/- was paid to him on 20.6.1990 and another sum of Rs. 19,637.50 was paid on 18.1.1992 by way of cheques.For these amounts the complainant did not send receipts. Having agreed to receive 50% of the money paid by him, he had come forward with the present vexatious claim. The opposite party is not liable to pay any amount to the complainant. The complaint is barred by limitation.

The District Forum, on consideration of evidence, rejected the case of the opposite party, and held that the opposite party is liable to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 38,862.50 with interest thereon at 12% p.a. from 18.1.1992 till the date of payment, with a cost of Rs. 350/-. It is against this order the opposite party has filed the appeal.

AFTER hearing both sides and on going through the relevant records, it appears to us that this is not a matter that can be decided by the Consumer Forum. As seen above, it is the contention of the opposite party that because of the loss sustained by the opposite party-Company, a resolution was passed to the effect that by liquidating the assets of the Company the shareholders of the Company would be paid 50% of the money paid by them to the Company and the claimant/complainant also agreed to receive 50% of the amount payable to him. It was in pursuance of that a sum of Rs. 5,000/- was paid to the complainant on20.6.1990 and another sum of Rs. 19,637.50 was paid to him on 18.1.1992. The District Forum has, in its order stated to the effect that the contentions of the opposite party that the comp lainant agreed to receive 50% of the amount payable to him appears probable from the payment of the amount in fraction, but however there is no acceptable evidence of such agreement. Ex. A3 is a notice dated 8.1.1992 sent by the opposite party to the complainant. Therein it has been clearly mentioned that the complainant had agreed to receive 50% of the amount payable to him and a sum of Rs. 5,000/- had already been paid on 20.6.1990 and for payment of the balance amount of Rs. 19,637.50 a receipt for his signature has been sent and on return of that receipt, payment will be arranged. It appears the complainant has sent back the receipt signing the same and the opposite party has sent a cheque for the said sum of Rs. 19,637.50. Upon receipt of that cheque, the complainant has sent Ex. A5 letter dated 3.6.1992 stating that he has received the cheque for Rs. 19,637.50 and encashed the same, and then stating that the balance amount of dues may be paid at the earliest. He has not whispered anything regarding the contents in the notice Ex. A3 of the opposite party that the complainant agreed to receive 50% of the amount payable to him. This conduct of the complainant highly probabalises that the complainant had agreed to receive 50% of the amount payable to him as contended by the opposite party. Further, as observed by the District Forum, the fraction of the amount paid, viz. Rs. 19,637.50 also further probabalises such an agreement. Of course, there is no direct evidence regarding such an agreement, but it must be understood that the opposite party would have been in a disadvantageous position and therefore, quite possibly it was not in a position to insist for a written agreement. From these it would appear that the complainant having agreed to receive 50% of the amount payable to him, upon a second thought, has made a claim for the entire amount in his letter Ex. A6 dated 9.11.1992 and has filed this complaint. Considering all these circumstances, it appears to us that this is a matter that could be agitated in a Civil Court and not in the Consumer Forum which adopts summary proceedings, so that the parties will have full opportunity of adducing all evidences necessary for decision of the matter in dispute. In this view of the matter, we allow the appeal; set aside the order of the District Forum and dismiss the complaint. Appeal allowed.