P.Q. Barkathali: President
This is an appeal filed by the opposite parties 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12 and 13 in CC.75/10 on the file of CDRF, Kasaragod challenging the order of the Forum dated, January 30, 2013 directing the opposite parties to pay Rs.3,29,000/- with interest and cost of Rs.7000/- being the chitty amount paid by the complainant.
2. The case of the complainant as testified by him as PW1 before the Forum and as detailed in the complaint in brief is this:-
Complainant joined 2 chitties conducted by the opposite parties 1 to 13. In one chitty he paid Rs.2,59,000/- and in another chitty he paid Rs.70,000/-. The opposite parties did not repay that amount. Therefore the complainant filed a complaint claiming that amount.
3. The first opposite party is Puthukkal Sree Vainingat Inswarante Kshethra Committee represented by its President. The second opposite party is Mr.C.V.Krishnan the treasurer of the Committee and third opposite party is Sri.Balachandran, the Secretary of the Committee.
4. Initially the complaint was instituted against opposite parties 1 to 3 only. On admitting the complaint notices were issued to opposite parties. Notice to opposite party No.2 is served. But he remained absent. Hence he was set exparte. Then complainant filed I.A.142/10 to implead supplemental opposite party No.4. It is allowed and supplemental opposite party No.4 was impleaded. OP.No.4 appeared in response to the notice and filed version. Subsequently notices to opposite parties 1 and 3 were effected through publication. But they remained absent. Hence opposite parties 1 and 3 were set exparte. Later complainant filed I.A.11/11 to implead supplemental opposite parties Nos.5 to 14. It is also allowed and notices were issued to supplemental opposite parties 5 to 13. Since opposite parties 11 and 14 are same person, OP.No.14 was removed from party array. In response to the notice the opposite parties 6, 9, 10, 12, 13 filed version. The other opposite parties did not file version. Thereafter complainant filed a memo to remove opposite party No.5 from the party array on the ground that opposite party No.5 is no more and that he is not seeking any relief against 5th opposite party.
5. The 4th opposite party in his version contended thus before the Forum:-
He neither conducted any chitty fund nor functioned as a Manager or member of the committee. Opposite party No.2 was the President and one Balachandran ie opposite party No.3 was the Secretary of the chitty fund. The fourth opposite party was working as a clerk under the opposite parties 1 to 3. Therefore he prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
6. Opposite parties 6 and 9 filed a joint version submitting that they are not members of the Kshethra Committee. Opposite parties 7, 10 and 12 also filed similar joint version. The 13th opposite party has also filed a version contending that he had no connection with the Kshethra Committee and that 2nd opposite party had forged his signature in the bye-law.
7. Complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts.A1 and A2 were marked on their side. The fourth opposite party did not adduce any oral evidence. Opposite parties 6 and 9 were examined as DWs 1 and 2 and opposite party No.13 as DW3, opposite party No.7 was examined as DW4 for himself and for opposite parties 10 and 12. On an appreciation of evidence, the Forum found that there was deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties and directed opposite parties 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 7 to 13 are liable to refund to the complainant Rs.3,29,000/- being the amount paid by the complainant with interest and a cost of Rs.7000/-. Opposite party Nos.4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12 and 13 have come up in appeal challenging the said order of the Forum.
8. In this appeal the respondents 2 to 7 who are the opposite parties 1, 2, 3, 5, 8 and 11 remained absent.
9. Heard the counsel for the appellants and the first respondent/ complainant.
The following points arise for consideration:-
1. Whether the appellants have any connection with the Puthukkal Sree Vainingat Inswarante Kshethra Committee?
2. Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the appellants and other opposite parties?
3. Whether the impugned order of the Forum can be sustained?
10. The main contention of the appellants and other opposite parties is that they have no connection with the Kshethra Committee and opposite parties 1 to 3 have forged their signatures in the bye-law. There is no merit in the above contention. The appellants and other opposite parties never attempted to initiate any criminal proceedings against opposite parties 2 and 3 who were exparte before the Forum and also in this appeal. It is not disputed that their names also appear in the bye-laws of the Kshethra Committee. Therefore Forum is perfectly justified in rejecting the contention that they have no connection with the Kshethra Committee.
11. Exts.A1 and A2 passbooks show that complainant has paid Rs.2,59,000/- in one chitty and Rs.70,000/- in the other chitty. As the members of the Kshethra Committee who conducted the chitty. Opposite parties are bound to repay that amount. The finding of the Forum on this point is confirmed.
12. The Forum has directed opposite parties 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 to 13 to pay to the complainant Rs.3,29,000/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of complaint till payment with a cost of Rs.7000/-. We find no reason to interfere with the said finding of the Forum.
In the result we find no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed with a cost of Rs.5000/-.