Sri Rampriya Chit Fund Private Ltd. vs Yara Srinivasa Rao

MR . Justice Ashok Bhan, President -M/s. Sri Rampriya Chit Fund Private Limited -petitioner herein, who was the opposite party before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh (herein referred to as the District Forum'' for short), has filed the present Revision Petition.

BRIEFLY stated, the facts of the case are: Complainant -respondent herein had joined Chit Fund Group RLG 2 and was allotted Chit No. 2/31. The chit value was Rs. 10,00,000 and monthly subscription was Rs. 25,000. Complainant, after paying subscription for 12 months, i.e., Rs. 3,00,000, discontinued the subscription. After the termination of the chit period, complainant asked the petitioner to refund the amount already paid by him after deducting Forman''s commission and incidental charges, which the petitioner failed to pay. Aggrieved by this, respondent filed a complaint before the District Forum.

AFTER being noticed, petitioner put in appearance. In the Counter Affidavit filed, it was contended that complainant/respondent became a member of two chit fund groups. It was admitted that the respondent had paid chit value subscription for 12 months in respect of first chit fund but in respect of second chit fund, a sum of Rs. 8,00,000 was still due. That the amount of Rs. 3,00,000 could be adjusted by the petitioner against the outstanding amount of Rs. 8,00,000 of the second chit fund group.

THE District Forum, after taking into consideration the evidence produced by the parties, allowed the complaint directing the petitioner to pay Rs. 2,49,960 with interest @ 24% p.a. from the date of termination of the chit till the date of realisation along with costs of Rs. 1,000.

AGGRIEVED against the Order passed by the District Forum, petitioner filed an Appeal before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission'' for short). State Commission, by its impugned Order, affirmed the Order of the District Forum except that it reduced the rate of interest from 24% to 12% p.a.

COUNSEL for the petitioner has been heard at length. Respondent is not present. Ordered to be proceeded ex parte.

IT is not disputed before us by the Counsel for the petitioner that respondent had joined Chit Fund Group RLG 2 and was allotted Chit No. 2/31. It is also not disputed that respondent had paid monthly subscription of Rs. 25,000 for 12 months. According to the petitioner, the petitioner could adjust the amount of sum of Rs. 3,00,000 against the outstanding demand of Rs. 8,00,000 in the other chit fund, which the respondent had failed to pay. He has referred to Clause 17(d) of the Agreement under which such an adjustment could be made. The same reads as under: "(d) Lien over amounts: If the chit subscribers are indebted to the Foreman for any amount either personally or as surety the Foreman will have in respect of such liabilities first charge over any amount that may be due to them from the Foreman and other assets lying with the Foreman. The Foreman has the right to adjust such amount towards his liabilities without prior notice. Only the balance if any will be paid to the subscribers."

THE claim of the respondent was allowed by the District Forum because the petitioner had failed to prove that a sum of Rs. 8,00,000 was payable by the respondent in respect of the other chit fund. For coming to this conclusion, the District Forum relied upon Exhibit A1 -notice issued by the respondent to the petitioner demanding the payment of Rs. 3,00,000 to which the petitioner responded by its letter -Exhibit A3 stating therein that after deducting the sum of Rs. 50,040 towards commission, their Office at Visakhapatnam was to pay Rs. 1,78,710. Taking this to be an admission, District Forum came to the conclusion that the petitioner was liable to pay the sum of Rs. 3,00,000 after deducting the sum of Rs. 50,040 towards incidental charges and, accordingly, directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 2,49,960 along with interest and costs.

STATE Commission has affirmed the Order passed by the District Forum.

COUNSEL for the petitioner has referred to the photostat copy of a Decree Sheet passed by II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada in O.S. No. 730 of 2001 on 8.9.2003 in which it has been held that the respondent is liable to pay to the petitioner a sum of Rs. 8,67,610 along with interest due under a chit agreement dated 22.8.1998. This document was not produced before the District Forum. Since, this document was not produced before the District Forum and no application has been filed for taking the additional evidence on record, the same cannot be taken into consideration. Otherwise also, petitioner has not produced the certified copy of the Judgment along with Decree Sheet passed by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada. No reliance can be placed on the photostat copy of the Decree Sheet placed before us. This apart, the Order of the State Commission is dated 31.8.2004. No reasons have been given as to why the same was not produced before the State Commission.

COUNSEL for the petitioner has also failed to put on record Exhibits Al and A3 relying upon which the District Forum allowed the complaint filed by the respondent. Petitioner has not produced any evidence to show that any amount was due towards the second chit fund. In the absence of any evidence that any amount was due to the petitioner, it is not possible to take a view contrary to what has been taken by the Fora below. Otherwise also, the concurrent findings recorded by the Fora below are findings of act, which cannot be interfered with in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. No merit. Dismissed. No costs. R.P. dismissed.