IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Commercial disputes cannot be decided in summary proceeding under 1986 Act.
(2) Legal heirs of a deceased partner do not become liable for any liability of firm upon death of partner.

JUDGMENT :

(Vikram Nath, J.) :

Leave granted.

2. This appeal assails the correctness of the order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission¹[NCDRC], dated 01.04.2022 passed in Revision Petition No.161 of 2022, titled Smt. Annapurna B. Uppin and three others vs. Sh. Malsiddappa and another, whereby the revision was dismissed and the order passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission²[SCDRC] and the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum³[DCDRF] allowing the complaint of respondent No.1 and directing the Opposite Parties⁴[OP] No.1 to 5 therein to be jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.5 lakhs along with simple interest @ 18% p.a. from 21.05.2002 to 20.05.2012 with further interest @ 6% p.a. from 21.05.2012 onwards till realisation. Further, an amount of Rs.5,000/- was awarded towards compensation for mental agony and Rs.2,000/- towards costs to the respondent (the complainant).

3. Brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are summarised hereunder:

3.1. The respondent No.1 filed a complaint before the DCDRF, Dharwad, Karnataka, alleging that he had invested Rs. 5 Lakhs in the partnership firm M/s Annapurneshwari Cotton Co., Amargol, Hubli⁵[The Firm] on 21.05.2002 which was repayable after 120 months with interest @ 18% per annum. The respondent No.1 sought for premature payment but it was denied on the ground that the same would be paid upon maturity. The respondent No.1 waited for the maturity and he again claimed but still the payment was not made compelling him to issue a notice on 12.02.2014 calling upon the opposite parties to make the payment. However, as the payment was not made, a complaint was filed before the DCDRF alleging deficiency in service.

3.2. Before the DCDRF, the respondent No.2 herein was arrayed as OP No.1 as partner of the firm and the appellants herein were arrayed as respondent Nos.2 to 5 being the legal heirs of one Basavaraj Uppin (since deceased). The appellant No.1 is the widow of said Basavaraj Uppin whereas appellant Nos. 2 to 4 are his sons. Before the DCDRF, separate written versions were filed by OP No.1 and OP Nos.2 to 5. In his written statement OP No.1 admitted that he was partner in the firm along with OP Nos.2 to 5 (being the successors and legal representatives of the deceased Managing Partner Basavaraj Uppin) and the liability of OP No.1 was only to the extent of 10 percent. He also admitted that the firm was accepting finance from individuals and parties on interest basis in order to generate finance for the firm. He also admitted that the complainant had invested an amount of Rs.5 lakhs and the said amount had not been paid. He also admitted that the Managing Partner Basavaraj Uppin, husband of OP No.2 and father of OP Nos.3 to 5 had died on 13.03.2003 and after his death, the legal heirs being OP Nos. 2 to 5 had taken over the business of the firm and were dealing with the same by taking possession of all books of accounts, financial receipts and payments.

3.3. He further stated that though there was no liability of OP No.1, he had been unnecessarily impleaded in order to get unlawful gains by the complainant. Thus, in effect, he admitted his liability of one-tenth of the share.

3.4. On the other hand, OP Nos. 2 to 5 contended that the complainant was not a ‘consumer’ and he had filed the instant complaint with wrong intention of recovering the amount illegally. They also contended that the complaint was not maintainable in view of section 63 of the Partnership Act, 1932, as there were only two partners and upon death of one of the partners, the firm came to be dissolved and as it was not in existence, the legal heirs of the deceased partner could not be impleaded as opposite parties for recovery of money from the firm. It was also stated that the complainant was one of the partners of the firm. They also denied the deposit of Rs.5 lakhs and that the receipt filed by the complainant was a concocted document. It was also submitted that they had not suc