A.KRISHNAMURTHY vs S.MARUTHAIYA

THE opposite party in C.O.P. No. 259/2000 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Tiruchirapalli, is the appellant herein.

THE complainant/respondent became a subscriber in respect of a scheme floated by the appellant/opposite party for purchase of a house site the scheme being the subscriber should pay @ Rs. 125 per month for 36 months and on completion of 36 months, a plot measuring 1,200 sq. ft. would be provided to the subscriber. It was also stated in the complaint that the opposite party had agreed to conduct lot every 9th day of the succeeding month and the successful person would be getting a plot and the said person would not have to pay the subsequent monthly instalments. THE complainant had been regularly paying the amount for 30 months and suddenly on 9.10.1999 the lot was not conducted by the opposite party and his office was closed. He had not subsequently opened his office. With great difficulty, the complainant located his address. He was bound to repay the amount of Rs. 3,750 with interest @ 24% p.a., Rs. 10,000 as compensation for mental agony and cost of the complaint. The opposite party resisted the complaint contending among other things that he was indeed having such a scheme, that he had appointed one Sekar as a collecting agent, that out Rs. 125 collected from the member, the said Sekar would take Rs. 25 and the balance was payable to the opposite party, that Sekar had collected amounts from the complainant but did not pay over to the opposite party, that under such circumstances, his agency was cancelled, that after receipt of the lawyer notice on behalf of the complainant, the opposite party summoned Sekar who accepted having received moneys from subscribers and not making overt the same to the opposite party and further agreed to discharge his liability by paying @ Rs. 300 per month, and that the complaint ought to have been filed only against Sekar and not against the opposite party.

Before the District Forum Exs. A 1 to A 6 were filed on the side of the complainant and none on the side of the opposite party. The District Forum after framing the necessary points for determination found that the complainant''s case that he had paid 30 instalments was not correct, and she had paid only 22 instalments, that though Sekar had collected those amounts, he had not made them over to the opposite party, that the amount was liable to be repaid by the opposite party, that both were at fault and in such circumstances, the opposite party was liable to refund the sum of Rs. 2,750 collected from the complainant. The District Forum granted a month''s time for payment of the amount, and also ordered that if the amount was not paid within one month, the amount would carry interest @ 12% from the date of its order till payment.

IN our view, there cannot be any two opinions with regard to the decision reached by the District Forum. Admittedly, Sekar was a collecting agent for the opposite party. He had collected the amounts from various subscribers including the complainant. The fact that Sekar did not make over the money to the opposite party cannot absolve the opposite party of his liability inasmuch as Sekar was only his agent. It was for the opposite party to proceed against Sekar and recover moneys from him. IN fact, the opposite party''s very case was that when Sekar was confronted, he accepted his guilt and offered to pay @ Rs. 300 per month to wipe-off the entire amount collected by him from various subscribers. The District Forum also found that both the parties were at fault. So far as complainant was concerned, he did not complete the subscription period of 36 months and so far the opposite party was concerned, he did not conduct the monthly casting of lot. Be that as it may, so far as the complainant was concerned, the District Forum rightly found that he was entitled to be repaid the amount paid by her over 22 months to Sekar. We concur with the finding reached by the District Forum. We do not find any merit in the appeal. In the result, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. No cost. Appeal dismissed.