YASORAAZ CHIT FUNDS (P.) LTD. vs V. Saraswathi

THE unsuccessful opposite party who remained absent in C.D. No. 159/96 on the file of District Consumer Forum, Ranga Reddy, is the appellant before this Commission.

THE case of the complainant is that the complainant joined as a member of the chit series YSP1Z floated by the opposite party for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-. THE amount is to be paid at the rate of Rs. 2,500/- per month in forty (40) months. THE chit has commenced in February, 1995. THE complainant paid 17 instalments and in the auction held on 24.3.1996, she was declared as the highest bidder for an amount of Rs. 35,000/-. After deducting the bid amount of Rs. 35,000/- the opposite party is bound to pay the prize amount of Rs. 65,000/- for which the complainant has furnished adequate sureties. THE opposite party has issued a cheque dated 10.5.1996 for Rs. 33,140/- only drawn on A.P. Mahesh Co-operative Urban Bank Ltd. and when she presented the cheque through her banker, the cheque was bounced for want of sufficient funds. THE complainant was also given another cheque dated 17.5.1996 for Rs. 30,000/- drawn on the same Bank which was also bounced for the same reason. When the complainant approached the opposite party, the opposite party gave another cheque dated 19.5.1996 for Rs. 30,000/- drawn on the Vysya Bank Ltd. MIG Extension Counter, BHEL, with an ante-date and when she went to draw the amount she was informed that there was no amount in the account of the opposite party. THE opposite party after taking back the first and second cheques issued a third cheque on 19.5.1996 and it was also dishonoured for want of sufficient funds, and the opposite party has taken away this cheque also. THE complainant sent a registered notice dated 24.9.1996 and the opposite party sent a reply dated 3.10.1996 demanding her to pay a sum of Rs. 57,500/-. THEreupon the complainant approached the District Forum. The opposite party in its written version admitted of issuing the cheque dated 10.5.1996 for Rs. 33,140/- towards part-payment of the prize money and the same was bounced for want of sufficient funds. It also further admitted that it issued another cheque dated 24.5.1996 for Rs. 33,140/- drawn on the Mahesh Co-operative Urban Bank Ltd., cancelling the words Account Payee cheque and making it a bearer cheque, to enable the complainant to draw the cash and the complainant has drawn the cash on 27.5.1996. It also admitted that the cheque dated 17.5.1996 for Rs. 30,000/- issued by it has bounced and they have issued another cheque dated 19.5.1996 drawn on Vysya Bank Ltd., MIG Extension Counter, BHEL cancelling the Account Payee cheque to enable the complainant to draw the amount and that they have filed a suit before the Sub-Court.

Basing on these pleadings and the evidence adduced, the District Forum partly allowed the complaint directing the opposite party to pay Rs. 33,140/- with interest at 12 per cent per annum from 1.4.1996 till the date of realisation besides costs of Rs. 1,000/-.

AGGRIEVED by the said finding and order, the opposite party preferred this appeal. The point for consideration is whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party? The undisputed facts are the complainant has joined in the chit group of Rs. 1,00,000/- and the amount has to be paid at the rate of Rs. 2,500/- per month in forty instalments. It is also not in dispute that she became the highest bidder for Rs. 65,000/- in the draw held on 24.3.1996, and the opposite party issued three cheques to the complainant for the said amount. The complainant alleges that all the cheques were bounced and she has not received any amount. The opposite party admits bouncing of cheques, but contends that two cheques issued by it after striking off the words "Account Payee" were encashed by the complaint. With regard to the cheque dated 24.5.1996 for Rs. 33,140/- issued in lieu of the bounced cheque dated 10.5.1996, the opposite party alleges, that it was encashed by the complainant. In support of its contention it relied on a letter dated 1.11.1996 issued by the A.P. Mahesh Co-operative Urban Bank Ltd., Serilingampally Branch, stating that the amount due under the said cheque was debited to the account of the opposite party. There is no other evidence to show that the said amount was paid or received by the complainant. Therefore, it is difficult to accept the plea of the opposite party that the said amount was received by the complainant.

THE next contention of the opposite party is that it paid another amount of Rs. 30,000/- through another cheque dated 10.5.1996. It filed the letter dated 22.11.1996 issued by the Vysya Bank, Patancheruvu Branch stating that the cheque dated 19.5.1996 was passed for payment on 8.6.1996. THE complainant alleges that as the cheque has bounced she handed over the cheque to the opposite party. In the face of the certificate issued by the Vysya Bank that the cheque was encashed by the complainant the plea of the complainant cannot be accepted. THEre is no material to show that the complainant has returned the said cheque to the opposite party or that the cheque was bounced for want of sufficient funds. THE District Forum has rightly accepted the version of the opposite party that the complainant has encashed the cheque and received Rs. 30,000/- from out of Rs. 65,000/-, the prize money. In those circumstances, it has rightly been held that the opposite party is liable to pay Rs. 33,140/- only to the complainant with interest at 12 per cent per annum from 1.4.1996 till the date of realisation. We find no merits in this appeal and this appeal is liable to be dismissed and is dismissed accordingly with costs of Rs. 1,000/-. Time for payment six weeks. Appeal dismissed.