ARCHANA GARG vs JASSI CHIT FUND PVT.LTD

BRIEFLY the facts are that respondent Nos. 1 is a Chit Fund Company and respondents No. 2 and 3 are its Directors. Respondent No.4 is the Registrar, Chit Funds, Delhi Administration. The respondents Nos. 1 to 3 started one Chit of Rs. 1,00,000/- bearing No. JCF-1 with 25 subscribers for 25 months. The complainants became subscribers to the said Chit holding ticket No. 14.

AN auction was held in respect of the said Chit on 28th March, 1991 in which the complainants were declared the prized subscriber and became entitled to receive a sum of Rs. 95,000/-. Respondent No.l accordingly issued two cheques in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 45,000/- in their favour. The cheque of Rs. 45,000/- was duly honoured, but the cheque bearing No. 692599 dated 5-6-91 in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- drawn on Syndicate Bank, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi was not honoured and the same was returned to the bank of the complainants with the remarks ''insufficient funds''. It is further pleaded that respondent Nos. 1 to 3 were duly informed that the cheque of Rs. 50,000/- had not been honoured. However, they failed to pay the said amount till date. Consequently the complainants filed a complaint for directing respondents No.1 to 3 to pay an amount of Rs. 1,07,000/- with interest @ 24% per-annum to them. It is further prayed by them that respondent No. 4 be directed to pay the said amount out of the security amount, which is kept by respondents Nos. 1 to 3 with them. The complaint was contested by the respondents.

We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. It is not disputed that the complainants were entitled to the amount of Rs. 95,000/- towards the payment of the chit, out of which only Rs. 45,000/- was received by them. The complainants in order to show that the cheque of Rs. 50,000/- was not honoured, produced in the Court three ''Return Memos'' dated 4-9-91,12-9-91 and 2-12-91 from Syndicate Bank, in which it is mentioned ''funds insufficient''. The complainant served notices dated 24-9-91 and 14-12-91 under registered covers on respondent No. 1. Both the notices were returned with a note by postman, that the addressee was not available at the address given on the envelopes. The addresses of the addressee as given on the envelopes are the same which have been given in the complaint. The complainants also sent copies of these notices to respondent No. 1 Under Certificate of Posting. They also sent copies of the first notice dated 24- 9-91 to respondent Nos. 2 and 3 Under Certificate of Posting. From the aforesaid documents it is evident that the officers of respondent No. 1 were avoiding to accept service of the notices. Respondent No. 1 has failed to pay the amount of Rs. 50,000/-, which it was liable to pay to the Complainants. However, respondents No.2 and 3 are not liable to pay the amount individually as no assurance is alleged to be given by them to the complainants, that they would make the payment, alongwith respondent No. 1. Therefore, respondent No.1 only is liable to pay the amount of Rs. 50,000/- to the complainants.

THE complainants have been deprived of the use of the amount of Rs. 50,000/- since 5th June, 1991 and respondent No. 1 had been illegally utilising that amount since then. Consequently, respondent No. 1 is liable to pay interest to the complainants by way of damages. We in the facts and circumstances of this case hold that the complainants are entitled to interest @ 16% per annum. THE amount of interest from 5th June, 1991 till 5th June, 1992 the date of the complaint comes to Rs. 8,000/-. Thus the complainants in all are entitled to recover Rs. 58,000/- from respondent No.1. It is admitted on behalf of respondent No. 4 that an amount of Rs. 50,000/- was deposited by respondent No. 1 with them as security amount. In our opinion they are liable to pay the said ammount to all the creditors of respondent No.1 rateably. The complainants are not entitled to receive whole of the said amount from respondent No.4. In case the complainants are unable to recover the amount of Rs. 58,000,00 or part thereof from respondent No.1, they shall make an application to respondent No.4 for recovery of the amount not received and respondent No. 4 shall pay the amount to them alongwith other creditors rateably.

FOR the aforesaid reasons we accept the complaint with costs and direct respondent No.1 to pay the amount of Rs. 58,000/- with interest @ 16% p.a., from the date of the complaint i.e., 6th June, 1992 till the date of payment within a period of 2 months. In case they are unable to recover the amount from respondent No.1 they in addition to the remedies under the Consumer Protection Act, shall be entitled to file an application for recovery of the amount to respondent No.4, who shall pay the amount out of the security amount deposited with them by respondent No.1, rateably alongwith other creditors as observed above. Costs Rs. 1,500/-. Complaint allowed with costs.