VASUNDARA ENTERPRISES vs KATTI SIVA KUMARI

IT is not in dispute that the complainant in OP 431/1995 District Forum, Guntur joined as a member of scheme run by the opposite party i.e. M/s. Vasundara Enterprises having its head office at Guntur and two branches at Chilakaluripet and Narsaraopet. The membership was given to the complainant in the place of one P. Venkateswarlu who discontinued his membership after paying 1 or 2 instalments. According to the agreement of partnership between the main office and two branches which were being managed by two agents, the duty of the branches is to enlist members for the chit transaction collect the monthly instalments and inform the head office at Guntur. The agents managing the branches will take monthly remuneration for the work done by them and also a share in the profits. The draw for the distribution of the prizes will be held by rotation i.e. first time at the branch of Narsaraopet and on the second occasion at the branch of Chilakaluripet and on the third occasion at the branch of Headquarters at Guntur. According to the complainant at the time when he joined as a substituted member, the agent of the branch at Chilakaluripet informed him that the previous dues of monthly instalments of Venkateswarlu could be paid in small amounts whenever it is possible and he has to continue the payment of monthly instalments thereafter. Therefore, the complainant paid at Chilakaluripet branch the amount of 6th and 7th instalments, even though he joined as a member at the stage of 8th instalment and the Branch Manager of Chilakaluripet issued a receipt for 6th and 7th instalments. The complainant''s number was included in the draw and he became the winner in the draw held at Guntur on 15.11.1993 and the same was intimated to the complainant as well as to all other members by printed post card as evidenced by Ex. A-2. But the complainant was not given the colour Television. He, therefore, filed the above complaint for delivery of the prize article i.e. colour TV and other reliefs.

THE opposite party i.e. main office at Guntur filed a counter stating that according to the partnership agreement the complaint is bad as the branch office at Chilakaluripet was not made a party and that the branch office at Chilakaluripet informed the main office at Guntur that the complainant has not paid all the instalments, although he had not paid all the earlier instalments, due and payable by Venkateswarlu, but paid only 6th and 7th instalments and that, therefore, the complainant is not entitled for any prize article and the complaint is liable to be dismissed. In view of the fact that the complainant became a member and was included in the draw to be held on 15.11.1993 and won the prize, the controversy was that at the time of admission as a member the agent of Chilakaluripet informed the complainant that he could pay earlier instalments due as per his convenience and that the agent collected the 6th and 7th monthly instalments and whether the complainant is entitled for the prize article.

The District Forum held that the very circumstance that the Branch office at Chilakaluripet collected from the complainant the instalment amounts due for 6th and 7th instalment and that he sent the name of the complainant to be included in the draw to the head office shows that the version of the complainant that the branch office agreed for payment of arrears of instalments by Venkateswarlu and the complainant has to continue the payment of monthly instalments, thereafter, from 8th draw is true as the very circumstance that the branch office accepted the same towards 6th and 7th instalments and including the name of the complainant in the draw probabilises the version of the complainant. The District Forum, therefore, held that as the branch at Chilakaluripet accepted the instalments, the same is binding on the head office. It further found that there is no evidence to show that the main office took any action against the branch office for the alleged irregularity of sending the name of the complainant to the head office for being included in the draw. The District Forum, therefore, held that there is no question of any non-joinder of necessary party and directed the complainant to pay the instalments due till the date of the draw to the opposite party and also directed payment of monthly instalments within one month from the date of communication of order and directed the opposite party to deliver the prize article to the complainant on such payment of instalments by the complainant within two weeks from the date of payment of monthly instalments by the complainant.

AGGRIEVED by the said order, this appeal is preferred by the opposite party. The first contention is that the complainant is a defaulter and, therefore, he is not entitled to participate in the draw and also not entitled for delivery of colour TV. But it is to be seen that the complainant became a member in the place of Venkateswarlu who committed default. The case of the complainant is that the Branch Manager informed the complainant that he can pay the arrears of instalments and pay the subsequent instalments from 8th month. Such arrangement is probabilised by the circumstance that the Branch Manager accepted the amount of 6th and 7th instalments and sent the name of the complainant to the head office for being included in the draw. That the complainant''s name was included in the draw and he won the prize are not in dispute. We are inclined to accept the version of the complainant that the Branch Manager, Chilakaluripet branch agreed to receive arrears of instalments payable by Venkateswarlu in instalments and pursuant to that he accepted payment of 6th and 7th instalments and included the name of the complainant in the draw. It is not open to the head office now to contend that the complainant is not eligible to be included in the draw and to refuse to pay the prize article due to the complainant when he became the prizewinner in the draw and when the same was intimated to all the members including the complainant. The District Forum in our view rightly directed the complainant to pay the balance of instalments including the arrears payable to the opposite party within a month and on such payment directed the opposite party to deliver the colour TV i.e. prize article to the complainant within two weeks from the date of payment of instalment amounts. We, therefore, do not see any reason to interfere with the order of the District Forum. The appeal is dismissed accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. Appeal dismissed.