This is an appeal filed under section 15of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the Complainant in CC No.87/2014 on the file of District Consumer Forum, Warangal feeling aggrieved by orders dated 27.01.2016 in dismissing its complaint.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the complaint.
3. The case of the Complainant, in brief, is that he joined in chit group No.FWT01V-25 of the Opposite party for the face value of Rs. 30,00,000/- with duration of SO months with monthly instalment of Rs. 60,000/- inclusive of dividend. The Complainant stated to have paid the instalments regularly and in the draw held in June 2010 the chit was knocked down in its favour. Even though Complainant furnished the sureties to the satisfaction of Opposite parties within 30 days, for the reasons best known, the Opposite parties paid the prized amount only after 5 months but failed to pay interest thereon instead have collected penalty of Rs. 93,637/-. In June, 2014 the Opposite parties demanded to pay Rs. 1,18,000/- to furnish the No Dues Certificate. In spite of making said payment, the Opposite parties failed to furnish No Dues Certificate. As a result of which, Complainant got issued notice on 10.07.2014 to which Opposite parties got issued evasive reply. Hence complaining deficiency in service filed the complaint with a prayer to direct the Opposite parties to pay the amount of Rs. 18,78,637/- and costs.
4. Opposite parties filed written version admitting the Complainant joining in their chit group for the value of Rs. 30,00,000/- and knocking down of chit in favour of Complainant in the auction held on 28.06.2010. However, the Complainant furnished sureties in the first week of November 2010 thereafter they issued cheque for the prized amount which the Complainant had withdrawn without any protest. Hence, for the laches on the part of the Complainant, they cannot be blamed. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the complaint with costs.
5. During the course of enquiry before the District Forum, in order to prove its case, the Complainant got filed the evidence affidavit of one Nakka Chandra shekar, its Managing partner and the documents Ex.A1 to A12. On behalf of the Opposite parties, one Bandari Shekar, their Branch Manager filed his affidavit evidence.
6. The District Forum after considering the material available on record, dismissed the complaint bearing CC No.87/2014, by orders dated 27.01.2016, as stated, at paragraph No.1, supra.
7. Aggrieved by the said orders, the Appellant preferred this appeal contending that the forum below failed to appreciate the evidence on record in proper perspective and also failed to take note of the fact that Appellant furnished sufficient sureties June 2010 itself in spite of which there is huge delay in payment of chit amount. It failed to take note of the fact that the Respondent collected the penalty of Rs. 93,637/- which is not permitted by law. Hence, prayed to allow the appeal by setting aside the orders impugned.
8. The point that arises for consideration is whether the impugned order as passed by the District Forum suffers from any error or irregularity or whether it is liable to be set aside, modified or interfered with, in any manner? To what relief ?
9. Admittedly, it is a fact that the Appellant joined in chit group bearing No.FWT01V-25 with the Respondents chit fund company for the face value of Rs. 30,00,000/- with a duration of 50 moths with monthly instalment of Rs. 60,000/-. It is also not in dispute that the Appellant participated in the chit auction held in June 2010 and the chit was knocked down in his favour and so also furnishing of sureties by him, however, the sureties were furnished only after five months, as per the version of Respondents chit Fund Company.
10. It is not disputed that the prized amount was paid to the Appellant/ Complainant subscriber five months after the bid was knocked down in his favour. The reason for the delay, according to the Respondent/Opposite party is non-furnishing of sureties till five months. This fact is not denied by the Complainant/Appellant nor is there any evidence placed on record to show that the sureties were furnished prior to November 2010. The Forum has considered the material on record in proper perspective and dism
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
issed the complaint. With regard to other recoveries and penalties, the same are held to be in accordance with Rules, regulations and conditions. Upon reappraisal of the entire material on record, I see no reason to interfere with the well reasoned order of the District Consumer Forum. There are no merits in the appeal, hence liable to be dismissed. 11. In the result, the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed but in the circumstances, the parties to bear their own costs.