Back
2010(2) CPR 76 (NC)
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Ashok Bhan, President and B.K. Taimni, Member
M/s. Sri Rampriya Chit Fund Pvt.Ltd. —Petitioner
versus
Yara Srinivasa Rao —Respondent
Revision Petition No. 75 of 2005
Decided on 10.8.2009
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Maruthi Rao, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Nemo.
Headnote:(a) Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Sections 2(1)(g), 21—Deficiency in service—Chit fund—Refund of deposited amount—Respondent paid subscription @ 25,000/- for 12 months—Petitioner responded to notice of respondent stating that their office would pay Rs. 1,78,710/- after deducting Rs. 50,040/- towards Commission—District Forum rightly held the petitioner liable to pay Rs. 249,960/- after deducting Rs. 50,040/- towards incidental charges—Concurrent findings of fact recorded by Fora below—Not liable to be interfered with in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. (Paras 8 to 11)
(b) Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Sections 15,21 —Additional evidence—No application filed for taking additional evidence on record—Such evidence cannot be considered. (Para 10)
(c) Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Section 21—Revision Certified copy of judgment along with decree sheet passed by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge not produced—Photostat copy thereof cannot be relied upon. (Para 10)
Ashok Bhan J., President — M/s. Sri Rampriya Chit Fund Private Limited-petitioner herein, who was the Opposite Party before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh (herein referred to as ‘the District Forum’ for short), has filed the present Revision Petition.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are:-
Complainant-respondent herein had joined Chit Fund Group RLG 2 and was allotted Chit No.2/31. The chit value was Rs.10,00,000/- and monthly subscription was Rs. 25,000/- Complainant, after paying subscription. For 12 months, i.e. Rs. 3000,000 discontinued the subscription. After the termination of the chit period, complainant asked the petitioner to refund the amount already paid by him after deducting forman’s commission and incidental charges, which the petitioner failed to pay. Aggrieved by this, respondent filed a complaint before the District Forum.
3. After being noticed, petitioner put in appearance. In the Counter Affidavit filed, it was contended that complainant respondent became a member of two chit fund groups. It was admitted that the respondent had paid chit value subscription for 12 months in respect of first chit fund but in respect of second chit fund, a sum of Rs. 8,00,000/- was still due. That the amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- could be adjusted by the petitioner against the outstanding amount of Rs. 8,00,000/- of the second chit fund group.
4. The District Forum, after taking into consideration the evidence produced by the parties, allowed the complaint directing the petitioner to pay Rs. 2,49,960/- with interest @ 24% p.a. from the date of termination of the chit till the date of realisation along with costs of Rs. 1,000/-.
5. Aggrieved against the Order passed by the District Forum, petitioner filed an Appeal before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as ‘the State Commission’ for short). State Commission, by its impugned Order, affirmed the Order, of the District Forum except that it reduced the rate of interest from 24% to 12% p.a.
6. Counsel for the petitioner has been heard at length. Respondent is not present. Ordered to be proceeded ex-parte.
7. It is not disputed before us by the Counsel for the petitioner that respondent had joined Chit Fund Group RLG 2 and was allotted Chit No.2/31. It is also not disputed that respondent had paid monthly subscription of Rs. 25,000- for 12 months. According to the petitioner, the petitioner could adjust the amount of sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- against the outstanding demand of Rs. 8,00,000/- in the other chit fund, which the respondent had failed to pay. He has referred to Clause 17(d) of the Agreement under which such an adjustment could be made. The same reads as under:-
“d) Lien Over Amounts: If the chit subscribers are indebted to the Foreman for any amount either personally or as surety the Foreman will have in respect of such liabilities first charge over any amount that may be due to them from the Foreman and other assets lying with the Foreman. The Foreman has the right to adjust such amount towards his liabilities without prior notice. Only the balance if any will be paid to the subscribers.”
8. The claim of the respondent was allowed by the District Forum because the petitioner had failed to prove that a sum of Rs. 8,00,000/- was payable by the respondent in respect of the other chit fund. For coming to this conclusion, the District Forum relied upon Exhibit A1-notice issued by the respondent to the petitioner demanding the payment of Rs. 3,00,000/- to which the petitioner responded by its letter- Exhibit A3 stating therein that after deducting the sum of Rs. 50,040/- towards commission, their Office at Visakhapatnam was to pay Rs.1,78,710/-. Taking this to be an admission, District Forum came to the conclusion that the petitioner was liable to pay the sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- after deducting the sum of Rs. 50,040 /- towards incidental charges and, accordingly, dire
