AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
V.K.Jain, J
The complainant/respondent was subscriber to as many as three chits floated by the petitioners one of them being chit no. RBL01J-31. The subscription for the aforesaid chit was Rs.12,500/- per month for a period of forty months. The complainant entered into a Chit Agreement with the petitioners, which was duly registered in the office of the Registrar of Chit Funds. He was declared highest bidder in the auction held on 27.03.2014 and a sum of Rs.3,73,000/- was payable to him pursuant to the said declaration. He was required to submit sureties to the satisfaction of the petitioners. The said sureties were furnished on 02.06.2014. The prize amount however, was not released to the complainant within one month of the furnishing of the sureties, as was required under clause VII (1) of the Chit Agreement. The petitioners allegedly prepared a cheque for the said amount on 21.07.2014 but one of the sureties sent a letter to them seeking cancellation of the sureties furnished by him. The said letter was written on 21.07.2014. According to the petitioner, the complainant failed to furnish fresh surety despite having been asked vide letter dated 21.07.2014. The bid which had been accepted in the auction held on 27.03.2014, was later cancelled by the petitioners. Being aggrieved, the complainant approached the concerned District Forum by way of a Consumer Complaint seeking prize money of Rs.3,73,000/- with interest and compensation.
The complaint was resisted by the petitioners who admitted that the complainant had subscribed to chit no. RBL01J-31 though he was declared highest bidder in the auction held on 27.03.2014. It was also admitted that the sureties were furnished in the month of June 2014. It was further alleged that since the complainant committed default in payment of two other chits, his name was removed from chit no. 20 and chit no. 31, adjusting a sum of Rs.1,13,400/- against chit no.31 and a sum of Rs.61,250/- against chit no. 20.
The District Forum having ruled in favour of the complainant and having directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.3,73,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 12% per annum w.e.f. 02.07.2014 and cost of litigation quantified at Rs.2,000/-, the petitioners approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. The said appeal having been dismissed, the petitioners are before this Commission.
Clause VII (1) of the Chit Agreement reads as under:
The prize amount will be paid to the Prized Subscriber at the Foreman's 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 sufficient for the due payment of future installments and the security on inspection, scrutiny etc., 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 installments. The security may be any of the following where the future liability is Rs.3,00,000/- or less.
It would thus be seen that the prize amount was required to be paid to the complainant within one month of his furnishing the sureties. If any verification of the sureties was sought to be carried out, that should have been done before expiry of one month from the date on which they were furnished. In the present case, the sureties were furnished on 02.06.2014 as is specifically alleged in para 4 of the complaint and not specifically denied in reply to the said para of the complaint. Therefore, the prize money ought to have been disbursed to the complainant on or before 02.07.2014. Had that been done, there would have been no occasion to withhold the prize money on account of withdrawal of one of the sureties since that withdrawal came much later on 21.07.2014. The petitioners therefore, were clearly deficient in rendering services to the complainant by not disbursing the prize amount to him on or before 02.07.2014.
Section 22(2) of the Chit Fund Act 1982 reads as under:
22(2). If, owing to the default of the prized subscriber, the prize amount due in respect of any draw remains unpaid until the date of the next succeeding instalment, the foreman shall deposit the prize amount forthwith in a separate account in an approved bank mentioned in the chit agreement and intimate in writing the fact of such deposit and the reasons therefor to the prized subscriber and the Registrar: Provided that where any prized subscriber does not collect the prize amount in respect of any instalment of a chit within a period of two months from the date of the draw, it shall be open to the foreman to hold another draw in respect of such instalment.
It would thus be seen that in case the prize amount could not be paid to the complainant on account of default on his part, until the date of the next succeeding installment, the said amount ought to have been deposited in an approved bank in a separate account and the said deposit was required to be intimated to the complainant alongwith reasons for the said deposit. That also was not done by the petitioners. A fresh draw could have been held only in case the complainant did not collect the prize amount within a period of two months from the date of draw. The petitioners therefore, committed yet another deficiency in rendering services to the complainant by not depositing the prize amount in a separate account in the approved bank in terms of Section 22(2) of the Chit Fund Act, 1982.
For the reasons stated hereinabove, the order passed by the District Forum which has been upheld by the State Commission, does not call for any interference by this Commission in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. The revision petition therefore, stands dismissed.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the complainant is in default in payment of several installments, pertaining to chits. If this is so, the petitioners shall be entitled to recover the said installments from the complainant in accordance with law and the Chit Agreement. It shall also be open to the petitioners to take such other remedy as may be open to them in law and under the Chit Agreement on account of the said alleged defaults.