A KRISHNAMURTHY Vs. S MARUTHAIYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The opposite party in C. O. P. No.259/2000 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Tiruchirapalli, is the appellant herein.

(2.) The complainant/respondent became a subscriber in respect of a scheme floated by the appellant/opposite party for purchase of a house site the scheme being the subscriber should pay @ Rs.125 per month for 36 months and on completion of 36 months, a plot measuring 1,200 sq. ft. would be provided to the subscriber. It was also stated in the complaint that the opposite party had agreed to conduct lot every 9th day of the succeeding month and the successful person would be getting a plot and the said person would not have to pay the subsequent monthly instalments. The complainant had been regularly paying the amount for 30 months and suddenly on 9.10.1999 the lot was not conducted by the opposite party and his office was closed. He had not subsequently opened his office. With great difficulty, the complainant located his address. He was bound to repay the amount of Rs.3,750 with interest @ 24% p. a. , Rs.10,000 as compensation for mental agony and cost of the complaint.

(3.) The opposite party resisted the complaint contending among other things that he was indeed having such a scheme, that he had appointed one Sekar as a collecting agent, that out Rs.125 collected from the member, the said Sekar would take Rs.25 and the balance was payable to the opposite party, that Sekar had collected amounts from the complainant but did not pay over to the opposite party, that under such circumstances, his agency was cancelled, that after receipt of the lawyer notice on behalf of the complainant, the opposite party summoned Sekar who accepted having received moneys from subscribers and not making overt the same to the opposite party and further agreed to discharge his liability by paying @ Rs.300 per month, and that the complaint ought to have been filed only against Sekar and not against the opposite party.