M/S. KAPIL CHIT FUNDS PVT. LTD. & ANR. THROUGH ITS CHIEF MANAGER, MD. ASHRAF AHMED, CENTRAL OFFICE, GUNROCK ENCLAVE, OPP. SECUNDERABAD HYDERABAD ANDHRA PRADESH Vs. SRI PAYAKARAO UPENDRA R/O. H. NO. 4

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the impugned order dated 29.11.2010, passed by the A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission ) in First Appeal No. 329/2008, M/s. Kapil Chit Funds Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Sri Payakarao Upendra , vide which, while allowing the appeal, the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Karim Nagar, dated 27.12.2007, in Consumer Complaint No. 104/2007, was ordered to be modified.

(2.) The facts of the case are that the complainant/respondent Payakarao Upendra joined as a chit member in chit series RTL05J-8 conducted by the opposite parties (OPs)/petitioners for a chit value of Rs. 5 lakhs with date of commencement being 25.11.2005 and date of termination being 25.12.2009 with a monthly subscription of Rs. 10,000.00 for a period of 50 months. It is stated in the consumer complaint that the complainant paid 22 instalments amounting to Rs. 2,20,000.00 and did not participate in chit auction and had not claimed any price amount in respect of the said chit. It is further stated in the complaint that the complainant stood as surety to one A. Surya Prakash, who committed default in paying the chit amount and a suit for recovery of money of Rs. 46,308.00 was filed against the said A. Surya Prakash and others, including the complainant vide O.S. No. 364/2005 before the Civil Judge Junior at Karim Nagar. The OPs started making phone calls in the first week of July, 2007 to the complainant, telling him that they were going to deduct amount from the complainant's chit to adjust the same to the account of the said A. Surya Prakash. He got issued legal notice on 09.07.2007 to the OP-2, requesting that deduction of any amount should not be made from his Chit. However, the OPs stopped receiving further instalments from the complainant. The complainant tried to send some cheque to the OPs drawn on State Bank of Hyderabad for Rs. 16,000.00 towards monthly subscription for July and Aug., but the same was not accepted by the OPs. The complainant sent another legal notice dated 17.08.2007 to the OPs along with the cheque, but the OPs sent him a removal letter, stating that the complainant did not pay the arrears in spite of notice sent by them on 13.07.2007. In the removal letter, the OPs stated that the complainant had paid an amount of Rs. 85,120.00 with them and after deducting 5% of the chit amount towards damages for breach of the contract, amounting to Rs. 25,000.00, the net amount payable to the complainant was Rs. 59,970.00. The complainant filed the consumer complaint in question, seeking directions to the OPs to pay Rs. 2,20,000.00 to him along with interest @ 24% per annum from the date of complaint till realisation and a compensation of Rs. 25,000.00 on various counts.

(3.) The complaint was resisted by the OPs by filing a written statement, in which they stated that the complainant had paid only 20 instalments and not 22 instalments and that he had stood surety for A. Surya Prakash, who had committed default and against whom a Civil Suit had been filed. It is further stated in the reply that as per the request of the complainant, the OPs had adjusted an amount of Rs. 55,865.00 out of the chit amount of the complainant to the credit of A. Surya Prakash. The Civil Suit was then withdrawn as 'not pressed'. In the removal notice dated 09.08.2007 sent by them, they had clearly stated that after adjustment of Rs. 55,865.00, the amount payable to the complainant was Rs. 85,120.00, from which the foreman's commission of Rs. 25,000.00 and Rs. 150.00 towards incidental charges had been deducted and the complainant was entitled for Rs. 59,970.00. In addition, a sum of Rs. 16,000.00, paid by the complainant after the said removal notice, was also payable to him. It was requested that the complaint in question should be dismissed.