CourtKutchehry.com
Tribunals and Commissions

K.SAMBASIVA RAO GUPTA vs SHRIRAM CHITS (P.) LTD.

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission · Decided on 5 March 2003 · Citation: 2003 4 CPJ 625 : 2004 1 CLT 233

HON’BLE JUDGES
P.Ramakrishnam Raju , Mamata Lakshmanna J.
RESULT
Appeal dismissed
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

4 paragraphs · 403 words
1.

THIS appeal is filed by the unsuccessful complainant in C.D. No. 103/1998 on the file of District Forum, Guntur.

2.

THE complainant was a subscriber of a Chit No. GLJ 6/23 run by the opposite party for Rs. 25,000/- for a period of 50 months. THE monthly subscription payable was Rs. 500/-. He regularly paid the subscriptions and at the time of 19th instalment on 25.10.1997, he was declared successful bidder. As per Ex. A6, he submitted three sureties as per the terms and conditions of the opposite party and filed other necessary documents. THE opposite party on being satisfied, prepared a cheque but as he wanted a draft instead of a cheque, the opposite party issued the same. In the process, there was a delay of one month and 15 days till the payment was made, hence he filed the complaint. The opposite parties in their counter stated that the three sureties belong to Macherla, hence it took some time for verfication, as their office was in Guntur as such they had to verify the documents through their branch office at Macherla.

The District Forum agreed with the contention of the opposite party and found that there was no deficiency in service and accordingly dismissed the complaint. Aggrieved by the said order, this appeal is filed.

3.

WE have gone through the records and documents filed before the District Forum. In the appeal it is alleged that the respondent violated its own terms and conditions such as not collecting the instalments from its members etc. and sending the money by pay order instead of demand draft and that he had to borrow money at a higher rate from private sources to perform monthly ceremony of his father as the amount was not paid immediately by the respondent. WE do not find any proof that he had actually borrowed and that he had to pay higher rate of interest even if it is so, we do not find any deficiency in service on the part of the respondent as it sent a pay order and only on the request re-issued a demand draft. So far as the sureties are concerned, it would have taken some time to check their credit-worthiness as they were not from Guntur. Hence we do not see any reason to interfere with the order of the District Forum. The appeal, therefore, fails and is accordingly dismissed. Appeal dismissed.