Back
ANDHRA PRADESH STATE CONSUMER
DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HYDERABAD
Hon’ble Mr. Justice A. Venkatarami Reddy, President &
Mrs. J. Ananda Lakshmi, Member
VEMURI BHARATHI—Complainant
versus
M/S. VIJAYA CREDIT CORPORATION & OTHERS—Opp. Parties
C.D. Nos. 51 and 84 of 1993—Decided on 7.6.1994
For the Complainant :Mr. P. Bhaskara Mohan, Advocate.
For the Opp. Parties :Mr. V. Jogayya Sharma & Mr. G. Veeranjanya Reddy, Advocates.
The failure to refund the amounts deposited with any financial institute on maturity will amount to deficiency of service.
Headnote:
CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT - SECTION 2(1)(d) - SECTION 2(1)(g) - SECTION 2(1)(o) - SECTION 15 - SECTION 21 - SECTION 25 - SECTION 26 - SUMMARY: The court held that the complainants were consumers within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and that the opposite parties were liable to pay the amounts claimed. The court also held that the opposite parties 4, 5, and 6 were partners of the firm and were therefore liable to pay the amounts claimed. The court awarded interest at 18% per annum on the amounts claimed and costs of Rs. 500/- to each of the complainants.
Fact of the Case:
The complainants deposited certain amounts with the opposite party, a partnership firm. The opposite party did not repay the amounts to the complainants on maturity of the deposits. The complainants filed complaints with the Consumer Commission seeking a direction to the opposite parties to pay the amounts due to them with interest at 24%.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the complainants were consumers within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and that the opposite parties were liable to pay the amounts claimed. The court also held that the opposite parties 4, 5, and 6 were partners of the firm and were therefore liable to pay the amounts claimed. The court awarded interest at 18% per annum on the amounts claimed and costs of Rs. 500/- to each of the complainants.
Issues: 1. Whether the complainants were consumers within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986? 2. Whether the opposite parties were liable to pay the amounts claimed? 3. Whether the opposite parties 4, 5, and 6 were partners of the firm?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the complainants were consumers within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, because the failure to refund the amounts deposited with any financial institute on maturity will amount to deficiency of service. 2. The court held that the opposite parties were liable to pay the amounts claimed because they were partners of the firm and the Managing Partner did not file any counter and contest the case. 3. The court held that the opposite parties 4, 5, and 6 were partners of the firm because they did not call for the original partnership deed from the Managing Partner or did not obtain a copy of the original partnership and produce the same before the Commission to show that they were not parties of the original partnership firm.
Final Decision: The court allowed the complaints and directed the opposite parties to pay the amounts claimed by the complainants with interest at 18% per annum and costs of Rs. 500/- to each of the complainants.
Mr. Justice A. Venkatarami Reddy, President—In C.D. Nos. 51/93 and 84/93 the opposite parties are the same. But the complainant’s are different. Since the nature of the relief claimed is one and the same and the questions that have to be decided are also common, we consider that these two C.D.’s cart be disposed of by a common order.
2. There is one complainant in C.D. 51 of 1993 and seven complainant’s in C.D. 84 of 1993. Their case is that they have deposited certain amounts with the opposite party i.e. M/s. Vijaya Credit Corporation, the partnership firm of which opposite parties 2 to 10 are partners. But the opposite party i.e. Partnership firm, did not repay the amount to them on maturity of the deposit amount. In certain cases the initial deposits were renewed for further periods. The only contention is that even after maturity of those deposits the opposite parties inspite of demand did not repay the amount. Hence these complaints are filed for a direction to the opposite parties i.e. partnership firm as well as the 10 partners to pay the amount due to the complainants in both the complaints with interest at 24%. In CD 51/93, the complainant claimed for refund of Rs. 41,140/towards the amount due to him in respect of three deposits with interest at 24% p.a from 18.3.93 and also a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards costs and Rs. 75,000/- towards exemplary damages.
3. The first complainant in C.D. 84/93 claimed a sum of Rs. 1,09,265/- with interest at 24% p.a. with effect from 10.3.93 and also the amounts of Rs. 5,000/- towards costs and Rs. 75,000/- towards exemplary damages. Similarly the second complainant claimed Rs. 30,731/- with 24% interest from 10.3.93 and also the aforesaid mentioned sums towards costs and exemplary damages. Similarly the third complainant claimed Rs. 20,836/- with interest at 18% p.a. from, 10.3.93 till the date of payment and also costs and exemplary damages. Fourth complainant claimed an amount of Rs. 31,949/- with interest at 18% p.a from 10.3.93 and also Rs. 5,000/- towards costs and Rs. 75,000/- towards exemplary damages. Fifth complainant claimed Rs. 13,891/- with interest at 18% p.a. from 10.3.93 and Rs. 5,000/- towards costs and Rs. 1,00,000/- as exemplary damages. Sixth complainant claimed Rs. 20,549/- with interest at 18% p.a. from 10.3.93 and costs of Rs. 5,000/- and exemplary damages of Rs. 75,000/-. Seventh complainant claimed Rs. 34,249/- with interest at 18% from 10.3.93 and also Rs. 5,000/- towards costs and Rs. 75,000/- towards exemplary damages. Opposite Parties 1, 2, 3, 7, 8 and 10 remained exparte.
4. Opposite Parties 4, 5 and 6 filed a common counter stating that they were never partners in M/s. Vijay Credit Corporation and the partnership deed was brought into existence with their names and with their forged signatures. The production of the original partnership deed proves that they were not partners in this Corporation. They also made allegations that there was a collusion between the partnership firm and the complain ant. Hence it is their submission that they are not liable for payment of any amount. The opposite party No. 9 filed a counter stating that the complainant is not a consumer and that there is no deficiency of service. It has no knowledge of depositing the amounts, and that the complainant did not inform the opposite party at the time when they deposited the amount and the deposit was made without the consent of the 9th opposite party. She further denied that the complainant has contacted her and she assured about the regular payment of the interest and also refund of the principal amount. She further denied that she never assured about the payment of the dues and that therefore, she is not liable. Thus it is seen that so far as 9th opposite party is concerned, the complainant did not inform her at any time about making the deposits and did not obtain her consent and that never assured repayment of the amount, and hence she is not liable to pay.
5. On the basis of th
