AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M. Shreesha, J
For the reasons stated in the application seeking condonation of delay, the delay of 78 days is condoned.
Challenge in this Revision Petition under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act") is to the order 03.08.2010 passed by the A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Hyderabad (for short "the State Commission") in First Appeal No. 1326 of 2008 against CC No. 30 of 2008 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Ranga Reddy District (for short "the District Forum"). By the impugned order the State Commission has allowed the Appeal directing the Opposite Party No. 1 to 4 (hereinafter referred to as "Chit Fund Company") to jointly and severally pay a sum of Rs. 1,04,500/- along with interest @ 9% p. from the respective dates of deposits till the date of realization. Rs. 2,000/- were awarded towards costs.
The facts in brief are that one Kastala Mohan Rao joined as a Member of the Chit series bearing No. HKT 01J for a chit value of Rs. 5 lakhs and paid 13 installments @ Rs. 10,000/- per month without default. While so, on 05.09.2005 he along-with Complainant approached fourth Opposite Party for getting the chit transferred in the name of the Complainant. The fourth Opposite Party obtained signatures on the chit transfer form and other documents and transferred the chit in the name of the Complainant. The Complainant paid Rs. 91,500/- to said Mr. K. Mohan Rao . It was averred that the fourth Opposite Party received 14th installment of the chit i.e. Rs. 6,500/- by way of cheque and issued a pass book entering all the payments. On 25.10.2005, the Assistant Manager of the fourth Opposite Party went to Nandigama and collected another sum of Rs. 6,500/- by way of cheque towards the 15th instalment and a receipt was issued for the same and entry was made in the pass book. It was averred that for payment of the 16th instalment when the Complainant approached the fourth Opposite Party, the same but it was refused by the office staff stating that the chit was not transferred in his name and the payment was to be made in the name of Sh. K. Mohan Rao. On 03.12.2005 addressed a letter to the Executive Director of the first Opposite Party and also to the fourth Opposite Party enclosing a cheque of Rs. 6,500/- but the same was returned without giving any reasons. Another registered letter along with cheque of Rs. 13,530/- was sent pertaining to 16th and 17th installments which were also returned. A legal notice dated 24.04.2006 was addressed to the Opposite Parties demanding to receive the installments due. Even after receiving the legal notice there was no response. It was pleaded that the act of omission on the part of the Opposite Parties amounts to deficiency of service and the Complainant seeks refund of Rs.1,04,500/- along with interest, compensation of Rs. 50,000/- and costs.
The fourth Opposite Party filed their Written Version which was adopted by the other Opposite Parties, wherein it was denied that the Complainant along with Mr. K. Mohan Rao had approached them and became a member of the chit. It was stated that the Original Chit Holder Mr. K. Mohan Rao was a defaulter and so the Chit Fund Company filed a Civil Suit for recovery of Rs. 65,551/- pending before the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District. The Khammam Branch also filed a suit in respect of another chit against said Mr. K. Mohan Rao for recovery of Rs. 27,147/-.
Based on the evidence adduced, District Forum dismissed the Complaint on the ground that the Complainant did not file affidavit of evidence of either himself or of Mr. K. Mohan Rao to prove that he paid Rs. 91,500/- to Mr.K. Mohan Rao.
Aggrieved by the said order, Complainant preferred an Appeal before the State Commission which allowed the same with the afore-noted directions observing as follows:-
"No doubt the complainant had not filed the evidence affidavit but he has filed his verified affidavit at the time of filing of the complaint and he mentioned all the list of documents which are relied to establish his case. Ex. B-1 to B-5 relates to the chit agreement executed by K. Mohan Rao and copy of the accounts statement pertaining to the chit in question.
It is a common practice and also permissible under bye-laws that whenever a Member of the chit unable to continue the chit the same may be transferred in the name of others. It is the look out of the transferor and transferee to agree to receive the payments that were to be paid. When once the opposite party had issued Ex. A-1 pass book in the name of the complainant acknowledging payments right from 25.09.2004 till 25.10.2005 it is for them to explain. This aspect was not at all been taken into consideration or discussed by the District Forum. So also, with regard to Ex. A-3 printed receipt signed by the opposite parties staff acknowledging payment of Rs. 6500/- on 25.10.2005 pertaining to the chit AKTOIJ-10 issued in the name of the himself. Further the complainant had issued Ex. A-4 registered notice to the Company's Executive Director and thereafter he sent Ex. A6 and A7 letters to the opposite parties enclosing cheques for Rs. 6,500/- and another for Rs. 13,530/- covering two installments but the said letter was returned by the opposite parties. Again Ex. A-12 registered notice was sent by the Complainant through registered post but there was no response at all. The documents Ex. B-1 to B-7 filed are of no help to resist the claim of the complainant when the opposite parties have issued pass book acknowledging the payments in it. Equity and justice requires that the complainant is to be refunded the amount to the extent that was paid. The District Forum has not at all discussed about these documents filed by the complainant. In the absence of any documentary proof that the complainant had paid Rs.91,500/- to Sri K. Mohan Rao he cannot claim for that amount. However, the complainant is entitled for the amount covered by Ex. A-1 and A3. Of course, the amount of Rs.6,500/- covered by E, A-3 is shown in Ex. A1 pass book. The total amount covered by the payments in Ex. A-1 comes to Rs.1,50,000/- inclusive of dividends but the complainant has claimed only Rs. 1,04,500/- with interest thereon and also compensation. The appellant/complainant is entitled to the amount of Rs. 1,04,500/- with interest thereon from respective dates of payment till realization. He is not entitled for any additional compensation.
The complainant is entitled for the amount of Rs. 6,500/- for 13 months, besides two payments of Rs. 10,000/- from 25.09.2004 up to 25.10.2005 which comes to Rs. 1,04,500/- but the complainant has restricted the amount of Rs. 1,04,500/- without claiming dividends on it. Therefore, the order of the District Forum is not sustainable and is liable to be dismissed." (Emphasis Supplied).
Learned Counsel appearing for the Revision Petitioner submitted that the State Commission has erred in observing that the chit was transferred in the name of the Complainant but the fact remains that the original subscriber Mr. K.Mohan Rao played fraud on the 4th Opposite Party only to escape his liability; that the statement of accounts of Mr. K. Mohan Rao from 26.08.2004 to 07.05.2006 shows that he is a defaulter; that the Petitioner issued removal letter dated 23.03.2006 to Mr. K. Mohan Rao; that as per the terms of the chit agreement and the byelaws fourth Opposite Party is having absolute lien over the rights in respect of a non prized chit amounts of Mr. K. Mohan Rao; that the Complainant had misrepresented that the staff of the Petitioner issued a fresh pass book in his name and that there is no deficiency of service on their behalf.
The contention of the Revision Petitioner that there were civil suits pending against Mr. K. Mohan Rao and the subsequent removal of Mr. K. Mohan Rao in the year 2996 has no relevance to the present case as the amounts were accepted in the name of the Complainant and entries were also made in the pass book.
It is observed from the record that the Respondent/Complainant had filed all the receipts and the pass book pertaining to the subject Chit. It is the contention of the Revision Petitioner that the original Chit subscriber Mr. K. Mohan Rao was removed from the Chit on 23.03.20065 but the said removal does not make any difference to the facts of the case it was on 25.10.2005 that an amount of Rs. 6,500/- was accepted by the 4th Opposite Party towards 15th installment and an entry was also made in the pass book on 01.12.2005. It is pertinent to note that both the 14th and 15th instalments were paid by cheque. When the pass book and the receipts evidence the amount paid to the chit and the total amount covered by the payments (Ex. A-1) is Rs. 1,50,000/- the State Commission has rightly deducted the dividends and arrived at Rs. 1,04,500/-. This amount was arrived at by multiplying 6500 for 13 months, in addition to two payments of Rs. 10,000/- from 25.09.2004 to 25.10.2005.
In view of afore-noted discussion we find no illegality or infirmity in the order of the State Commission to exercise our limited revisional jurisdiction as envisaged by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. M/s United India Insurance Company Ltd. (2011) 11 SCC 269. Hence this Revision Petition is dismissed.