LAWS(NCD)-2007-4-26

MALKIAT SINGH Vs. CHRISTIAN MEDICAL COLLEGE AND HOSPITAL

Decided On April 25, 2007
KAPIL CHIT FUND PVT. LTD. Appellant
V/S
A. SHRAVAN KUMAR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the order dated 5.5.2006 of A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad setting aside the order dated 28.10.2004 of a District Forum and directing the petitioner to pay Rs. 1,41,000 to the respondent with interest @ 9% p.a. from 16.2.2002. The District Forum had dismissed the complaint filed by the respondent.

(2.) Respondent/complainant was the member of chit group bearing No. WT 10-M-03 run by the petitioner/opposite party for the chit value of Rs. 10,00,000 payable @ Rs. 20,000 for a period of 50 months. He participated in the auction which took place on 16.2.2000 and was declared successful bidder for the price amount of Rs. 5,50,000 having agreed to forego sum of Rs. 4,50,000. Respondent alleged that he was paid Rs. 4,07,500 and the remaining prize amount of Rs. 1,42,500 was retained by the petitioner. Claiming deficiency in service he filed complaint seeking payment of the said amount with interest and compensation which was contested by the petitioner by filing written version. It was alleged that the entire price amount was paid. Amount of Rs. 4,07,500 was paid by an account payee cheque while amount of Rs. 1,41,000 through an adjustment letter given by the respondent. It was denied that amount of Rs. 1,42,500 was retained. It was alleged that as the respondent had committed default in making payment of the future monthly subscriptions a Civil Suit No. 570 of 2003 for recovery of Rs. 3,51,003 has been filed against him on 29.12.2003.

(3.) Controversy between the parties in present revision revolves around adjustment of the amount of Rs. 1,41,000 based on adjustment letter dated 16.2.2002. Copy of this letter is at page 22. In this letter the amounts of Rs. 11,384, Rs. 3,876, Rs. 5,505, Rs. 10,235, Rs. 13,000 and Rs. 12,998, totalling Rs. 1,41,000 are shown to have been adjusted towards payment of chit group Nos. WS 10 F-02, WS 12 F 06, WL 06 G-02, WL 02 J-39, WT 10 M-24 and WT 10 M-43 respectively. It is contended by Shri D. Bharat Kumar for the petitioner that one of the issues framed in O.S. No. 570 of 2003 filed by the petitioner against the respondent and 7 others was in regard to adjustment of the said amount and the Civil Court by the judgment dated 6.4.2006 has disbelieved the plea taken in the suit by the respondent that adjustment letter at Ex. A-4 (copy at page 22) was one of the documents on which the petitioner had obtained his signatures while those were blank and decreed the suit for an amount of Rs. 3,61,003 with interest. Appeal filed by the respondent against the judgment dated 6.4.2006 has been dismissed. It is pointed out by Shri Kumar that the complaint out of which present revision arises, was filed after the filing of OS No. 570 of 2003. The State Commission had, thus, acted erroneously in setting aside the order of the District Forum. On the other hand, it is argued by Shri Ranjit for the respondent that the amount of Rs. 1,41,000 mentioned in aforesaid letter does not relate to the respondent and non-payment of this amount amounts to the deficiency in service on the part of petitioner. It has been pointed out that against the dismissal of appeal the respondent has filed second appeal bearing No. 111 of 2007 and an interim stay has been granted by the A.P. High Court on condition of the petitioner depositing half of the disputed amount. Mr. Ranjit further submits that the judgments passed by the two Courts cannot be taken note of in this revision. To be only noted that reference is made to OS No. 570 of 2003 in the written version filed in the complaint by the petitioner. From the judgment dated 6.4.2006, it is evident that adjustment of the aforesaid amount was one of the issues in the suit. Judgment would show that the plea taken by respondent of his signatures having been obtained on blank papers including on the said adjustment letter by the petitioner, was discarded. Since amount of Rs. 1,41,000 was adjusted on the strength of respondent's letter at page 22, the petitioner cannot be held to have unauthorisedly retained it so as to make out case of deficiency in service on its part. Order passed by State Commission, therefore, cannot be legally sustained and deserves to be set aside.