BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : HYDERABAD.

F.A.No.642 OF 2019 AGAINST ORDERS IN C.C.123/2016 DISTRICT CONSUMER COMMISSION, RANGA REDDY Between:

M/s Margadarsi Chit Fund Pvt., Ltd., 17-85, 1^st Floor, Annapurna Complex, Gaddiannaram, Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad-500 060, Rep. by its Branch Manager.

………..Appellant/Opposite Party And:

M.Ravi Kumar, S/o Late M.Srinivas Rao, Aged about 51 years, Occ.: Business, R/o Flat No.104, Block No.1, Shubha Lakshmi Apartments, RD No.3, Green Hills Colony, Saroornagar, R.R.Dist.-500 035. …..Respondent/Complainant Counsel for the Appellant/Opposite Party : M/s R.Chankradhar Counsel for the Respondent/Complainant : M/s A.Naveen Kumar QUORUM :

HON’BLE SMT. MEENA RAMANATHAN, I/c PRESIDENT &

HON’BLE SRI. V.V.SESHUBABU, MEMBER – (JUDICIAL)

TUESDAY, THE 1^st DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND TWENTY FOUR **********

Order : (PER HON’BLE SRI. V.V.SESHUBABU, MEMBER – JUDICIAL)

1. The appeal is filed u/s 15 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the Opposite Party, aggrieved by the order of District Consumer Commission, Ranga Reddy, dated 25.09.2019 in CC 123/2016, where under the opposite party was directed to return the amount of Rs.1,65,000/- along with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of complaint till the date of realization and to pay costs of Rs.10,000/-. Time for compliance is 30 days, in default the opposite party shall pay Rs.20,000/- as punitive damages to the complainant.

2. The brief averments of the complaint are that the complainant is a member and subscriber of the Chit bearing No.LTO 11D D/22 (CAR No.346/2015), value of Rs.25,00,000/-

duration is 50 months; that he is the prized subscriber for Rs.15,00,000/- with discount of Rs.10,00,000/- in an auction held on 17.01.2016. The complainant furnished necessary documents and sureties to the opposite party for getting the bid amount of Rs.15,00,000/-, but they have not paid the bid amount. The complainant has paid chit amount for few months, i.e. in total he had paid Rs.1,65,300/- after that he discontinued because the opposite party has not paid the bid amount; that inspite of several requests made by the complainant, the opposite party either paid the bid amount or returned the chit amounts paid by the complainant. The complainant issued a legal notice dated 12.04.2016 and the opposite party has sent reply notice dated 04.05.2016 stating that the discretion of the opposite party to accept personal surety instead of insisting on the immovable property, security; that the complainant has never asked to submit any immovable property as security. The non-payment of the bid amount to the complainant constitutes deficiency in service;

hence, the complaint.

3. The brief averments of the written version of Opposite Party are that the complaint is misconceived and not maintainable either under law or facts. It is admitted that the complainant has joined as chit member and became a successful bidder in the auction held on 17.01.2016; that complainant submitted sureties’ particulars on 06.02.2016 to release the prize amount for the scrutiny of this opposite party; that after scrutiny of the said documents and sureties by the Corporate Office, it was found that documents were not satisfied and the same was informed to the complainant vide letter dated 26.03.2016; that the complainant has not furnished the required documents, so the opposite party has informed the complainant that prize amount will be deposited in an approved bank which carries no interest and the same was deposited before Union Bank of India, Dilsukhanagar; that the complainant has requested to refund the paid amount, which is against the terms and conditions of the Chit Agreement. According to the Chit Agreement when a prized subscriber does not furnish sufficient security, the foreman has the right to adjust the unpaid deposited prize amount to future installments and if the unpaid prize money is not sufficient to meet future subscriptions or the bid, falls in the re-auction