Insistence of the opposite party, to furnish sufficient security cannot be termed as negligent act
BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI Present Hon'ble Thiru Justice M. THANIKACHALAM PRESIDENT Thiru.J.Jayaram, M.A., M.L., JUDICIAL MEMBER F.A.90/2008 [Against order in C.C.199/2005 on the file of the DCDRF, Coimbatore] DATED THIS THE 29th DAY OF APRIL 2011 M/s. Sree Gokulam Chit and Finance, | Appellant / Opposite Party Company Private Ltd., | Rep. by Managing Director, | 225, Big Bazar Street, | Coimbatore 1. | Vs. P. Ramamurthy, | Respondent / Complainant S/o. Perumal, | 480, Oppenakara Street, | Coimbatore 1. | The respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the appellant/opposite party praying for the direction to the opposite party to pay Rs.20,000/- with interest from 18.6.2005 till realization, to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and loss and to pay the cost. The District Forum allowed the complaint, against the said order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.11.12.2007 in C.C.199/2005. This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 18.04.2011, upon hearing the arguments of the either counsels and perused the documents, as well as the order of the District Forum, this Commission made the following order: Counsel for the Appellant /Opposite Party: Mr.P.E.R. Nambiar, Advocate. Counsel for the Respondent/Complainant : Mr.S.Natarajan, Advocate. M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT 1.
The opposite party is the appellant.
2. The complainant/respondent, who had subscribed, in the chit group of Rs.50,000/- [63D/96] conducted/floated by the opposite party, from 19.7.2004, became the successful bidder on 19.2.2005 at the time of 8th draw. After the discount of Rs.12,000/-, the complainant is entitled to the balance, for which, documents were executed. But, despite repeated requests, the opposite party refused to release the amount, seeking security, which was not the practice previously, thereby they have committed deficiency in service, causing mental agony. Therefore, the complainant is entitled to the collected sum of Rs.20,000/- with interest, along with compensation of Rs.50,000/-. Hence, the complaint.
3. The opposite party, admitting that the complainant was a subscriber in group No.63D/96 as well, he became successful bidder in the 8th draw, resisted the complaint, contending that he failed for furnish the security for the payments, which is mandated under law, that despite the request to furnish security and take the amount, the complainant instead of complying the same, unnecessarily filed the case, issuing notice and since the opposite party has not committed any deficiency, the complainant is not entitled to any relief, thereby praying for the dismissal of the complaint.
4. The District Forum deducing a conclusion, that the opposite party had insisted unnecessary documents from the complainant, has come to the conclusion that there was deficiency in service, on that basis, directed the opposite party, to pay the amount subscribed including dividend with interest along with compensation of Rs.10,000/-, as per the order dated 11.12.2007, which is under challenge.
5. It is the common case of the parties that the complainant, who was the subscriber in the chit conducted by the opposite party in group N.63D/96, subscribed amount, participated in the draw, declared as successful bidder, at 8th draw, less Rs.12,500/-. The amount so allotted in the 8th draw was not given to the complainant. Aggrieved by this, a consumer complaint was filed, as if, the opposite party, has committed deficiency in service, claiming a sum of Rs.20,000/- being the subscription amount or amounts collected from the complainant, with interest along with compensation of Rs.50,000/-, not for the prize amount.
6. The complainant though claimed a sum of Rs.20,000/- as seen from the prayer, a direction was given to pay a sum of Rs.20,120/- along with dividend of Rs.3,200/- and it is not known, where from the District Forum had obtained, the particulars when it is not the case of the complainant himself, as seen from the prayers, thereby showing over enthusiasm, in supporting this kind of claim, when there was no deficiency. Be it as it may.
7. The learned counsel for the appellant urged before us, that in order to disburse the amount under law, the complainant should have furnished security, which he failed, admittedly, and therefore such a person is not entitled to the amount paid, as incorrectly held by the District Forum to which submission, we are unable to say No, though opposed by the respondent/complainant.
8. In the complaint, it is said that the opposite party never had the habit of asking immovable property, as security for chit group of Rs.50,000/- whereas wantonly the opposite party played mischief that should be construed as negligent act, as well as deficiency in service. The District Forum has also recorded a finding, that the opposite party failed to produce any document to prove that they have insisted security from the previous prized subscriber, assuming, they have failed, when they have acted according to law, as far as the complainant is concerned that cannot be followed. Probably, when the other prized subscribers, were not defaulters or they have not committed any default in payment, even the opposite party might have relaxed the rule, that does not mean the same benefit should be extended, to a defaulter namely the complainant, as urged before us. When the opposite party had insisted the security, as per the law that cannot be faulted and the Forum cannot go beyond the law, and say when the opposite party insisted to follow the rules, that should be construed, as deficiency in service, taking bad precedents, assuming if any.
9. As per the Section 31 of the Chit Funds Act, 1982, which reads Every prized subscriber shall if he has not offered to deduct the amount of all future subscriptions from the prized amount due to him furnish and a foreman shall take sufficient security for the due payment for all future subscriptions, which is mandatory in nature. Therefore, the insistence of the opposite party, to furnish sufficient security cannot be termed as negligent act and if we say so, that would amount to giving premium for the defaulter or in other words, the Forum cannot issue a direction against the Act, which was done improperly, by the District Forum. It is not the case of the complainant also that he had offered security, which was not accepted or refused, and admittedly not giving security, insistence of the security is branded as mischievous act, by the complainant, for which, we cannot help, as illegally helped by the District Forum. Thus, viewing the case from the point of law, we find no deficiency of any kind and therefore, the order of the District Forum is liable to be set aside.
10. In the result, the appeal is allowed, the order of the District Forum, Coimbatore in OP No.199/2005, dt.11.12.2007 is set aside, and the complaint is dismissed. There will be no order as to cost throughout.
11. The Registry is directed to handover the Fixed Deposit Receipt, made towards the mandatory deposit, to the appellant/ opposite party duly discharged, since appellant succeeded, and there is no need to retain the FDR.
J. JAYARAM M.THANIKACHALAM JUDICIAL MEMBER PRESIDENT
Comments
Post a Comment