THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR C.R.P. NO. 5771 of 2006 Date of order: 8.4.2010 Between: Nizam Club and another …Petitioners and Mrs. Roomana ..Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR C.R.P. NO. 5771 OF 2006 ORDER: 1. This revision is directed against the order of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-XIV-Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Fast Track Court, Hyderabad allowing OP No. 2068 of 2003 dated 11.9.2006. 2. The respondent’s husband-S.M. Askari was a member of Nizam Club-1st petitioner and on his death, the respondent became a member of the said Club. The respondent was not attending the club regularly, but her children are using the facilities of the club. The respondent stated that notices and reminders were sent by the club to her to pay an amount of Rs.2,198.85 ps before 30.4.2003. She further stated that she was not in Hyderabad and was in Bangalore. Subsequently the first petitioner-club also extended the time upto 7.5.2003, as the notice was not served on her in accordance with Rule 17 (a) of the Rules of the Nizam Club. It is the specific case of the respondent that she paid the entire amount within the said time to the President of the club on 6.5.2003. However, the President could not deposit the amount with the cashier of the club on 7.5.2003 as he was busy with the union strike, meetings and other works. On the ground that payment has not been made by the respondent before 5.30 P.M. on 7.5.2003, her membership was declared to have ceased. Questioning the said action of the club, the respondent filed the present OP. Under the impugned order the OP has been allowed on the ground that the payment made by the respondent to the President was not denied by the President himself and as such tendering of the amount by the respondent within the time was held established though it was not recorded in the cash register of the club. 3. Heard Mr. S. Niranjan Reddy, learned counsel for the revision petitioners who has strenuously contended that the very approach of the learned Additional Chief Judge is not justified and he has drawn my attention to Rule 28 of the Club Bye-laws which stipulates the mode of payment of club dues itself. The learned counsel states that according to the said rule, the payment has to be made to the cashier during the club office working hours and he particularly points out the specific clause in the said Bye-laws that no other club staff are authorised to collect cash from the members and the club will not be responsible if cash is handed over to unauthorised persons and the bills remain unpaid. Basing on the above, the learned counsel submits that the very action of the respondent in making payment to the President of the club is contrary to the Bye-laws and in any case the first petitioner-club is not responsible if any payment is made to unauthorised person and the bills remained unpaid. The learned counsel submits that before the due date and time outstanding bill amount was not paid by the respondent and therefore, in accordance with Rule 17 (a) of the Rules of the Nizam Club if a member fails or refuses to pay any amount due to the club for a period of exceeding six months or who has been declared as a defaulter for three times within a period of two calendar years shall be declared by the Managing Committee to have ceased to be a member of the club. The learned counsel has also drawn my attention to the notices issued to the respondent more than once and the payment was not forthcoming from the respondent. 4. It is evident from the record that the president as well as secretary of the club were impleaded in the OP and the learned Additional Chief Judge has noticed that neither of them has filed counter disputing the statement of the respondent that she made the entire payment on 6.5.2003 i.e., one day prior to the due date. Though it is a fact that the said payment was not received in the club, but the respondent did make payment to the president of the club. In terms of bye-law 28 of the Club Bye-laws, relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners, it cannot be said that the president of the club is a staff of the club and therefore not authorised to collect cash from the members. Though club staff is not defined in the Bye-laws, but bye-laws 20 and 21 of the Bye-laws relating to tips to staff and club employees which state that the club employees shall not be reprimanded or punished by any member clearly shows that the club staff is referable to club employees and bye-law 28 of the Bye- laws, therefore categorically states that any payment to be club staff will not be an authorised payment. However, president of managing committee of the club cannot be equated to the club staff. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners, therefore, that the payment to the president of club is not required to be taken cognisance of, is not sustainable. The learned Additional Chief Judge has rightly appreciated the issue involved and allowed the OP. I do not find any perversity or error warranting correction under supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The revision is devoid of merits and deserves to be dismissed. 5. Accordingly the revision petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. _________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J Dt. 8.4.2010 KR