Back
BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE CONsUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
cOMMISSION:HYDERABAD
FA NO.71/2019 AGAINST cC No.14/2014 ON THE
FILE OF DISTRICT FORUM, RANGAREDDY
Between
Dandu Krishna Murthy Raju,
S/o.D.Venkata Raju, Aged about 70 years,
R/o.8-3-167/30, Flat # 201, Erragadda,
Hyderabad - 18.
Appellant/
Complainant
And
The Branch Manager,
Kapil Chit Funds Pvt. Ltd.,
Located at KAHB, Near JNTU.,
Hyderabad.
.Respondent/
Opposite party
Counsel for the Appellant
Party in Person
Counsel for the Respondent
Mr.K.Vijayender Reddy
cORAM
Hon'ble Sri Justice M.S.K. Jaiswal, President.
And
Hon'ble Smt. Meena Ramanathan, Lady Member
FRIDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF DECEMBER,
TWO THOUSAND TWENTY ONE
Order:
1. This is an
appeal
filed by the appellant/complainant u/s.15 of
Consumer Protection Act,1986 against the order dt.27.11.2018
of the Dist.
Consumer Forum, Rangareddy
made in C.c.No.14/2014.
The appellant is the
complainant and
respondent is the
opposite
party in c.c.No.14/2014.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are described as arrayed in
the complaint.
3. The brief facts of the case as set out in the complaint are as follows:
The Complainant joined as a member in 12 vacant chits of opposite party
chit fund company as below:
S.
Vacant
Date of joining
of the chit
FKPTO1-40
18.10.2011
Chit No.
Charges
Rs.2,977/
No.
FKPTO1-50
18.10.2011
Rs.2,977/
3. FKL09F-34
4. FKL09F-35
24.05.2010
Rs. 903/-
24.05.2010
Rs. 903/-
5. FKLO9F-36
24.05.2010
Rs. 903/-
6. FKL09F-37
24.05.2010
Rs. 903/-
KPTO3E-29
21.05.2009
8. KPTO3E-35
KPTO3E-41
21.05.2009
Rs. 432/
10. KPTo3E-48
Rs. 432/-
21.05.2009
Rs. 432/-
21.05.2009
Rs. 432/-
11. KPTO4E-25
21.05.2009Rs. 348/-
12 KPTO4E-26
21.05.2009
Rs. 348/
The opposite party collected Rs.13,062/- towards vacant charges
and also
collected Rs.5000/- towards
excess verification charges
for the above said
chits, without the consent of the complainant. Hence the complainant issued
notice dt.19.9.2013 to the opposite party, for which no response was given.
Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party,
the
complainant approached the District Forum to direct the opposite party to
pay the vacant charges of R.13,062/- with 18% interest and also refund the
verification charges which were collected from him, to pay compensation of
Rs.50,000/- and to pay Rs.5000/- towards costs.
4. The opposite party filed written version denying the allegations made in
the complaint and contending that as per the Clause 64 of the amended Chit
Fund Act, the dispute relating to the chit business shall be referred by any of
the parties to the dispute, to the Registrar for Arbitration whose decision shall
be final and no Forum, Authority or Civil Court are having any jurisdiction to
decide the cases. The opposite party submits that if the chit subscriber opts
to join at a later
stage by making part payment/ full payment of the
instalments at a time in such an event the opposite party gives a benefit of
allowing the dividend accrued on the completed instalments as on the date of
joining the chit and collect 10% towards
vacant charges on the quantum of
dividend allowed to the subscribers i.e. the late joining subscribers will get
benefit 90% of the quantum of dividend.
The opposite party submits that
they have collected only a meagre amount of Rs. 11,662/- towards vacant
charges and
the complainant
benefitted an amount of Rs. 1,12,244/-
towards the dividend.
The opposite party further submits that the complaint is liable to be
dismissed
on the ground of limitation
as the complainant joined into the
alleged chits in the years 2009, 2010 and 2011 and the present complaint
1s filed in January,2014 i.e after 4 years of the cause of action. The opposite
party finally
submits that there is no dcficicncy in service
and prayed to
dismiss the complaint.
Before the District Forum the complainant iled his evidence affidavit and
5
