Back
2010(3) CPR 56
ANDHRA PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, VISAKHAPATNAM
Syed Abdullah, Presiding Member and R. Lakshminarsimha Rao, Member
B. Shyam —Appellant
versus
Srinidhi Enterprises and Ors. —Respondents
First Appeal No.843 of 2007
Decided on—8.2.2010
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellant: Mr. B. Shyam (PIP).
For the Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 4: Served.
For the Respondent No. 3:Mr. A. Rama Rao, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Partners of a firm are jointly and severally liable to satisfy the liabilities of the firm.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2 (1)(g)—Deficiency in service—Non-payment of maturity amount—Opposite Parties 1 to 4 Partners of firm M/s. Srinidhi Finance (Regd.)—Complainant deposited Rs. 8,000/-—Maturity value of the deposit not paid when it became due—Opposite parties being partners of the firm jointly and severally liable to satisfy liability of the firm—Non-payment of maturity amount deficiency in service—Opposite parties directed to pay the maturity value of Rs. 11,000/- with interest @ 9% and costs of Rs. 2000/-. (Paras 8 to 10)
R. Lakshminarsimha Rao, Member—The unsuccessful complainant is the appellant. His prayer seeking direction to the respondents for payment of amount under maturity bond Rs. 11,000 along with interest @ 36% per annum, Rs. 5 Lakh towards compensation, Rs.10,000 towards damages and Rs. 1,500 towards costs of the complaint was denied by the District Forum.
2. The brief averments of the complaint are that the opposite party Nos. 1 to 4 established finance business under name and style of M/s. Srinidhi Enterprises (Regd.) They have introduced a finance scheme wherein the appellant has joined as subscriber and invested an amount of Rs. 8,000 @ Rs. 500 per month. The opposite parties issued cash certificate with maturity amount of Rs. 11,000 and the date of maturity as 24.9.2002. After the date of maturity the complainant requested the opposite parties to pay the maturity amount, the opposite parties failed to repay the same. The complainant got issued legal notice through his Counsel demanding for refund of the maturity amount of Rs. 11,000 with interest. The complainant submits that the acts of the opposite parties amount to negligence and deficiency in service. Hence, the complainant prays to allow the complaint.
The opposite party No. 1 remained ex parte.
3. The opposite party No.3 filed counter which was adopted by the opposite party No.2 denying the averments of the complaint and stated that the mutual benefit fund scheme was introduced by them. The complainant contributed Rs. 8,000 and he was issued cash certificate for maturity value of Rs.11,000 with maturity date 24.9.2002. The opposite party I No.1 has advanced the amount to other members of the scheme as loan. The borrowers failed to repay the loan. Consequently the maturity amount could not be paid to the members of the scheme. An agreement was entered into between the opposite parties distributing all the liabilities. A notarized agreement deed was executed on 3.8.2002. The amount covered under sixty four certificates the liability thereto, of Rs. 4,96,262 was agreed to be refunded by the opposite parties to the certificate holders in accordance with the respective lots of the opposite party Nos. 1 to 4. The opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 have cleared some payment to the certificate holders who fell under the lots allotted C to them. The complainants claim was allotted to the opposite party No. 1. The complainant agreed to recover the amount from the opposite party No. 1. The complainant has not approached the opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 at any time claiming for the amount.
4. The opposite party No. 4 has filed counter denying his liability to pay the amount, to the complainant. It is stated that the complaint is not maintainable and the dispute is not a consumer dispute.—
The complainant filed his affidavit in the shape of evidence. He has filed copies of the cash certificate and legal notice dated 1.3.2003. / The opposite party No.4 has filed his affidavit. Opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 have filed documents Exs. B1 to B6.
The District Forum has dismissed the complaint holding that the complainant has failed to file original cash certificate.
5. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the District Forum the complainant has filed this appeal contending that the District Forum failed to consider the documents filed by him.
The points for consideration are:
1. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties? If so,
2. To what relief?
Point No.1
6. The opposite party Nos. 1 to 4 have established the finance business under name and style of M/s. Srinidhi Finance (Regd.). The opposite party Nos. 1 to 4 are the partners of the firm. The complainant had deposited an amount of Rs. 8,000 over a period of 64 months and the opposite parties have issued cash certificate in the name of complainant which was signed by the opposite party Nos. 1 to 4. The date of maturity is 24.9.2002. The opposite parties did not pay the maturity amount on demand after
