IMPORTANT POINT
Power of National Commission to review under Section 21 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is limited to cases where some prima facie error appears in impugned order.

ORDER

The present revision petition has been filed against order dated 21.02.2017 of the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in Appeal no. 329 of 2008 arising out of the order dated 27.12.2007 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Karimnagar (in short, ‘the District Forum’) in Consumer Complaint no. 104 of 2007.

2. The facts, in brief, are that the respondent/ complainant joined as a chit member of petitioner no.1/ opposite party no.1 in a Chit Series no. RTL05J-8 conducted by the petitioners at Karimnagar Branch. Under this the monthly subscription was Rs.10,000/- payable for 50 months and the total chit value was of Rs.5,00,000/- which commenced from 25.11.2005. The respondent paid 22 instalments of Rs.2,20,000/- including the dividends regularly. The respondent participated in the chit but did not claim any prize amount in respect of the chit. The respondent stood surety for Mr Surya Prakash who was one of the chit member. The said member defaulted in the paying prescribed chit amount. Hence, the branch member of petitioner no.1 filed a suit for recovery of Rs.46,308 against Surya Prakash and others including the respondent vide OS no.364 of 2005 before the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Karimnagar.

3. In July 2007, the petitioner no.2 threatened the respondent to deduct the amount from the respondent’s amount and adjust the same in the account of Surya Prakash. The respondent requested the petitioner no.2 not to deduct the amount. On 09.07.2007, the petitioner no.2 instead of rendering the good service had a legal notice issued to petitioner no.2 requesting not to deduct any amount from his chit account. Despite receipt of notice on 10.07.2007, the petitioner no.2 did reply and intentionally did not receive the instalment amount from the respondent with a malafide intention.

4. On 06.08.2007, the respondent filed his written statement in OS no.364 of 2005 before the Principal Junior Civil Judge at Karimnagar. On 09.08.2007 the petitioner issued a letter of removal to the respondent and ascertained that the amount due to him was Rs.59,970/-.

5. On 14.08.2007, the respondent obtained a cheque bearing no.439262 for Rs.16,000/- on 14.08.2007 towards monthly subscription of July and August of 2007 which was sent to petitioner no.2 who did not accept it. On 17.08.2007, the respondent issued a legal notice to the petitioner no.2 which was received along with the said cheque on 18.08.2007. The respondent received a registered letter from petitioner no.2 which was the removal letter stating that respondent has failed to pay the arrears despite of notice dated 13.07.2007. The petitioner no.2 stated in his removal letter that the respondent had paid Rs.85,120/- and deducted 5% of the chit amount towards damages for breach of contract and the net amount payable was Rs.59,970/- to the respondent.

6. In response, the respondent filed consumer complaint no.104 of 2007 before the District Forum. Petitioner no.2 filed its counter admitting that the respondent was a subscriber of the chit and he had executed the agreement of chit agreeing to abide by the terms and conditions of the agreement. It was contended that the case was not maintainable either in law or on facts and liable to be dismissed with cost. The respondent had paid only 20 instalments and not 22. The respondent stood surety to Surya Prakash with petitioner no.2 branch in view of the default committed by Surya Prakash. Petitioner no.2 withdrew the above suit as not pressed in view of the payment made by respondent/ guarantor of Surya Prakash. Since the respondent committed default in payment of instalments, petitioner no.2 got issued a registered notice on 09.08.2007 for removal of the membership of the respondent from the said chit. The respondent filed the said removal letter along with the complaint. The respondent neither disputed the said notice nor gave any reply. He, however, sent a cheque