P VANAJA KUMARI Vs. A S REDDY BASHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We heard the Counsel for the appellant, Mr. V. Madhusudhan Rao respondent, who was the complainant before the District Forum, was served and he sent a written representation.

(2.) We called for the records of the District Forum because one of the contentions raised by the appellant in this appeal is that the appellant did not receive notice in C. D. C. No.63/1998 from the District Forum. The record of the District Forum is before us and we find that notices were sent to both the opposite parties and that the notice sent to the second opposite party was returned with the postal endorsement "refused. So Returned to Sender". From the returned cover it is seen that it was sought to be served on her on 6th, 7th, 11th and 13th April, 1998. In the circumstances we find that the stand taken by the appellant is not correct. As she refused to receive the registered letter containing notice to her, it must be deemed that she received the notice.

(3.) The complainant approached the Chittoor District Forum stating that he joined in a chit that was being run by the opposite parties and that he paid 17 monthly instalments. The chit itself was for Rs.25,000/- and the duration of the chit was 20 months and the amount to be paid for each month was Rs.1,250/- subject to deductions by way of dividends. The case of the complainant before the District Forum was that the chit was being run by the two -opposite parties i. e. , P. Chandra (first opposite party) and Smt. P. Vanaja Kumari (second opposite party ). The complainant allowed the complaint to be dismissed against the first opposite party and pressed the complaint only against Smt. P. Vanaja Kumari. Relying on the xerox copy (marked as Ex. A1) of the chit pass-book filed by the complainant, the District Forum allowed the complaint by its order dated 24.7.1998 and directed the second opposite party to pay Rs.18,710/- with interest at 18% per annum from the date of the complaint till realisation and also costs of Rs.500/-. The second opposite party i. e. , Smt. P. Vanaja Kumari, questions the said order in the present appeal as appellant.