BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: HYDERABAD.

FA.NO.597 OF 2019 AGAINST ORDERS IN CC.NO.45 OF 2016, ON THE FILE OF DISTRICT CONSUMER COMMISSION, MEDAK AT SANGAREDDY Between:

1. Smt.Hanumanthu Triveni, W/o.Late H.Appa Rao, Aged about 62 years, Occ: Household, R/o.H.No.25-29/27, Mayuri Nagar, Ashok Nagar, R.C. Puram, Sangareddy District, T.S.

2. Kothakota Madhavi, W/o.Ganapathi, Aged about 40 years, Occ: Pvt.Employee, R/o.H.No.25/29/15/3, Mayuri Nagar, Ashok Nagar, R.C.Puram, Sangareddy District, T.S.

....Appellants/Opposite Parties And T.Surender Reddy, S/o.T.Raghava Reddy, Aged about 65 years, Occ: Retd.Employee, R/o.Flat No.25-4, Road No.4, Kakateeya Nagar, R.C.Puram, Sangareddy District, T.S.

....Respondent/Complainant Counsel for the Appellants/Opp.Parties: M/s.Avadhani & Ambati Associates Counsel for the Respondent/Complainant: Sri Nerusu Srinivas Rao QUORAM:

HON’BLE SMT.MEENA RAMANATHAN…IN-CHARGE PRESIDENT &

HON’BLE SRI V.V.SESHUBABU….MEMBER-JUDICIAL MONDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND TWENTY FOUR *******

Order : (Per Smt.Meena Ramanathan, Hon’ble I/c President)

1. This appeal is filed by the Appellants/Opposite Parties under Section 15 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order passed in CC.No.45 of 2016 dated 13.08.2019 on the file of District Consumer Commission, Medak at Sangareddy.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the complaint.

3. The brief facts of the complaint are that – the Complainant believing the representation of Opposite Party No.1 and the people who accompanied her, entered into a chit agreement and subscribed for a chit amount for Rs.25,00,000/- @ Rs.1,00,000/- per month for 25 months commenced in the month of January,2015. A passbook was issued to the Complainant for entering monthly subscriptions. While the said chit was in process, the Complainant came to know that some other subscribers were not paid the bid amount and were cheated by the Opposite Parties for which they lodged a complaint at S.H.O., R.C. Puram against Opposite parties vide Cr.No.45/2016 for the offences U/s.420 IPC, R/w.34 IPC, Sec.5 of AP Protection of Depositors Financial Establishment Act, 1999 and the Opposite Parties were in jail for 2 months.

4. Therefore, the Complainant stopped paying for chit subscriptions and requested the Opposite Parties for payment of the subscribed amount/bid amount, but the Opposite Parties bluntly refused by saying that they have no money. Foreman charges were also collected from the Complainant as such he is the consumer under Consumer Protection Act. The Opposite Parties failed to pay the chit amount and hence, alleging deficiency in service, the Complainant filed the complaint.

5. The Opposite Parties filed their written version denying the allegations made by the Complainant. It is contended that the Opposite Party No.1 is a housewife and the Opposite Party No.2 is her daughter who is married and living with her husband separately since 1998. The Opposite Parties are in no way concerned with the alleged chit fund. They never ran any chit fund business nor did they collect chit amount from the Complainant. Moreover, the Commission below has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as the complaint comes under the purview of the Chit Fund Act, 1982 and the District Registrar of Chits is the competent authority. Therefore, prayed to dismiss the complaint.

6. During the course of enquiry the Complainant filed evidence affidavit and got marked Vide Ex.A1 to A5. The Opposite Parties filed evidence affidavit and further filed third party affidavits of R2 & R3. No documents are marked on their behalf.

7. The District Commission after hearing arguments on both sides and after examining the material borne by the record, partly allowed the complaint directing the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 jointly and severally to pay to the Complainant a sum of Rs.6,08,600/- subscribed towards the chit amount under Ex.A1; to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/