Money can’t be adjusted from surety accounts | Mumbai News

Shriram Chits (Maharashtra) which was carrying on banking and insurance business. On July 27, 2013, Dnyaneshwar became a member of the fund by opening an account with a chit value of Rs 5 lakh with a monthly subscription of Rs 10,000.
Dnyaneshwar paid the monthly subscription of Rs 10,000 for 245 months, till Sept 2015. Thereafter, due to financial problems, he could not deposit the instalments, but later in Feb 2016 he offered to deposit the outstanding instalments along with penal interest. However, his request was rejected and he was informed that his account has been closed.
Dnyaneshwar demanded Rs 2,50,000 which was the balance in his account, but his money was not returned. So he filed a complaint before the Latur District Consumer Commission, which allowed his complaint. Shriam Chits challenged against the order before the Aurangabad Bench of the Maharashtra State Commission, which dismissed the appeal.
The company then filed a revision before the National Commission. It relied on the agreement executed with Dnyaneshwar which provided that in case of default in timely payment of the subscription, the member would be entitled to receive the net subscription remaining in his account after clearing all liabilities (both personal as well as in his capacity as surety or guarantor for others), and also a penalty of 5% of the total chit money would be deducted from his account.
The company argued that Dnayneshwar was liable to pay the outstanding amount of Rs 1,05,120/ due from Abdul Raheman Jamir Mulani for whom he had stood surety. Hence after all the deductions, Dnyaneshwar was entitled to get Rs 43,932/, but he had refused to accept the refund cheque.
In its order of Aug 22, 2024 delivered by Inder Jit Singh, the National Commission noted that the amount shown in the passbook produced by Dnyaneshwar as well as in the statement submitted by Shriram Chits showed that an amount of Rs 2,50,000 was the balance in the account on Sept 19, 2015. In held that in the absence of any notice, it was incorrect to recover the dues of Abdul Rehman Jamil Rumani for whom Dnyaneshwar had stood surety.
However, in view of the default in payment of subscription and the closure of the account, the interest of Rs 68,688 would have to be reversed and 5% of the chit value amounting to Rs 25,000 would have to be recovered before making payment. The amount refundable would thus work out to Rs 1,56,312.