Mr. Justice S.S. Chadha, Member—These two appeals by 3 out of 10 opposite parties are directed against the common order dated 7.6.94 of the Andhra Prasesh State Commission at Hyaderbad in CD. Nos. 51/93 and 96/93 before it, allowing the two complaints and directing opposite parties to refund the various amounts of deposit made by the respective complainants with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from various specified dates with costs of Rs. 500/- to each complainant but disallowing the claim of exemplary damages.

2. Since the Appellants do not question the quantum determination, it is not necessary to notice facts in detail. The Appellants herein who were opposite party Nos. 4 to 6 in the complaint had only contested the claim mainly on the ground “that they were not partners of M/s. Vijaya Credit Corporation, and their names had been included fictitiously and under forged signatures and that there was collusion between the Complainants and the said Corporation. The partnership firm and other partners except opposite party No. 9 did not contest the claim made in the two complaints and remained ex-parte before the State Commission. The case of the complainants is that they deposited or renewed deposits of certain specified amounts with opposite party No. 1-M/s. Vijaya Credit Corporation, a partnership firm of opposite party Nos. 2 to 10, but the opposite parties failed to repay the amount on maturity despite repeated demands and in fact certain cheques issued for repayment also bounced. The State Commission found that opposite parties are carrying on business of accepting deposits on interest and dealing in money lending business and had accepted the various deposits from the complainants under written agreements. It is well settled that the failure to refund the amounts deposited with any financial institution on maturity will amount to deficiency in service. The State Commission found that the opposite party Nos. 4 to 6 except stating that some fraud was committed and their signatures were forged and that their names were not existing in the partnership deed, did not call for the original partnership deed from the Managing Partner nor did they obtain the copy of the original partnership deed and produce the same before the State Commission to show that they are not partners of the partnership firm. Their plea that some fraud was committed and on account of the fraud their signatures were forged by the other partners, was not substantiated before the State Commission. The State Commission evaluated the material on record in respect of each Complainant of the quantum of deposit made and due as also the date of payment of interest and granted the reliefs to each of the Complainants with interest.

3. The only question raised in these appeals is whether the Appellants herein are and/or were partners of M/s. Vijay a Credit Corporation at the relevant time. Photo copies of the respective agreements of fixed deposits in M/s. Vijaya Corporation are on record. These have been executed by the complainants between 1988 to 1991 and M /s. Vijaya Credit Corporation, Regd. No. 3610, represented by its Managing Partner, Smt. P. Bhramaramba dealing in money lending business, construction and financing. Promissory notes-cum-receipts and other documents have been executed, photo copies of which are on record. Photo copies of the cheques for repayment of the deposits with interest issued by the said Corporation under the signatures of Smt. P. Bhramaramba and the memos of the Bank refusing to honour the cheques because of insufficient funds are also on record. Thus there was sufficient material before the State Commission to assess the quantum of each Complainant and these findings are not seriously disputed before this Commission. -

4. The complainants had placed on record certified copy of the Form “A” issued by the Registrar of Firms. It is a copy of the record of the entry in a Register called the Register of Firms maintained under Sect