- (1.) THE opposite parties in O.P. No. 191/2000 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chennai (North) are the appellants therein. The case of the complainant was as follows: (a) He joined a chit group for the value of Rs. 10,000 with the opposite parties. At the auction held on 11.1.2000, he was the successful bidder at Rs. 7,000. He was told that he would be paid the amount on or before 10.2.2000. He furnished the sureties. The Branch Manager asked for alternative securities on the ground that the complainant s chit payment was not required. Due to prolonged delay in the payment of the prize money, the complainant could not provide proper medical treatment to his mother and his mother died. The complainant caused a lawyer notice to be issued. The opposite parties again asked for a guarantor. The complainant was informed that the opposite parties had transferred the prize money in a separate account on 10.2.2000 itself. Due to deficiency in service and lapse on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant had lost his mother which could not be compensated. However, the complainant would be satisfied if the prize money was paid with immediate effect with a compensation of Rs. 50,000 and a cost of Rs. 3,000 were paid.
(2.) THE opposite parties filed a version contending inter alia that the complaint was not maintainable in view of Section 64(3) of the Chit Funds Act. The complainant was chronic defaulter in the payment of monthly subscription. When the complainant demanded the prize money, the Foreman found the securities inadequate and called upon the complainant to furnish better security. The complainant in spite of the information did not contact the branch manager. Re -auction was held on 11.7.2000. After re -auction, the complainant ceased to be a prized subscriber. He was therefore not entitled to receive the prize money. There was no condition in the chit agreement that the amount had to be paid at the need and urgency of the subscriber. The complainant failed to furnish proper surety and therefore the prize money was not realized. The loss of the complainant s mother could not be attributed to the opposite parties. There was no deficiency in service.
(3.) ON the side of the complainants, Exs. A1 to A13 were marked while on the side of the opposite parties Exs. B1 to B9 were marked. The District Forum found that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and by order dated 11.7.2003 directed the opposite parties to pay the prize money of Rs. 7,000 with compensation of Rs. 50,000 and cost of Rs. 1,000. It is as against that the present appeal has been filed.;