Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Mr. Prem Narain, Presiding Member
V.V. RAMANARSAIAH - Appellant
Versus
ABHEESTHA FINANCE COMPANY - Respondent
Revision Petition Nos. 2138-2142 of 2009 in First Appeal No. 109 and 209 of 2006, 141 of 2006, 108 of 2009 and 113 of 2009 of Andhra Pardesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Decided on : 22-09-2016

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. K. Maruthi Rao, Advocate, for the Petitioners; Ex parte, for the Respondent Nos. 1, 4, 7 and 8; Ex parte, for the Respondent Nos. 2, 3, 5 and 6

The court emphasized the maintainability of the complaint, the representation of the company in the complaint, and the absence of delay in filing the complaint.

Headnote:
FDRs - Consumer Disputes - Consumer Protection Act, 1956 - Section 12, Section 21 - Summary: The court discussed the issuance of FDRs by a partnership firm, the liability of the partners, the issue of limitation, and the authority to extend the validity of the FDRs. The court found that the complaint was maintainable, the company was represented in the complaint, and there was no delay in filing the complaint. The court upheld the order of the District Forum with a modification in the interest rate.
Fact of the Case:

The complainants invested in FDRs with a finance company. The interest was paid till October 2001, and then stopped. The District Forum allowed the complaint, directing the opposite parties to refund the maturity amounts and pay interest. The opposite parties appealed against this order.
Finding of the Court:

The State Commission set aside the order of the District Forum, stating that the complaint was not maintainable and should be decided by the Civil Court. The court found that the complaint was maintainable, the company was represented in the complaint, and there was no delay in filing the complaint. The court upheld the order of the District Forum with a modification in the interest rate.
Issues: The issues included the maintainability of the complaint, the liability of the partners, the issue of limitation, and the authority to extend the validity of the FDRs.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the complaint was maintainable, the company was represented in the complaint, and there was no delay in filing the complaint. The court upheld the order of the District Forum with a modification in the interest rate.
Final Decision: The court allowed the revision petitions, setting aside the order of the State Commission and upholding the order of the District Forum with a modification in the interest rate.

ORDER

Mr. Prem Narain, Presiding Member.—These five revision petitions have been filed by the petitioners, Sri V.V. Ramanarsaiah and Ors. against the common order dated 5.2.2009 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Andhra Pradesh, (in short 'the State Commission') passed in FA Nos. 109 of 2006, 209 of 2006, 141 of 2006, 108 of 2009 and 113 of 2009.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners/complainants invested their money in 10 FDRs with the opposite party No. 1/respondent M/s. Abheeshta Finance Company. The complainants are husband, wife, son and daughter-in-law. The details of the FDRs are as follows:

S. No. Name FDR No. Date Amount Maturity Date

1. V.V. Rama Narasaiah 125 5.2.1998 50,000 5.2.1999

2. V.V. Rama Narasaiah 147 16.12.1998 50,000 16.12.1999

3. V.V. Rama Narasaiah 187 4.7.1999 62,000 4.7.2000

4. V.V. Rama Narasaiah 275 6.12.2001 1 lakh 6.12.2002

5. Smt. V. Amrutha Bai 124 5.2.1998 50,000 5.2.1999

6. Smt. V. Amrutha Bai 230 8.12.1999 50,000 8.12.2000

7. Smt. V. Amrutha Bai 176 17.4.1999 50,000 17.4.2000

8. Smt. V. Amrutha Bai 076 11.12.1998 1 lakh 11.12.1999

9. V. Prabhakar Rao 145 16.12.1999 50,000 16.12.2000

10. V. Sarala & V. Prabakar Rao 146 16.12.1998 1 lakh 16.12.1999

3. The amounts were invested in years from 1998 till 2001 and their, maturity, ranged from 1999 to 2002. The interest has been paid till October, 2001 and was stopped with effect from November, 2001. Alleging deficiency on the part of the opposite party No. 1 and its partners, the complainants filed a complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, Hyderabad,(in short 'the District Forum'), being complaint No. CD. No. 575 of 2003. Opposite party Nos.1 to 8 filed their counters and resisted the complaint. OP Nos. 1 and 8 resisted on the basis that all the payments were made to the complainants and nothing was due. Opposite party No. 2 also filed his counter stating that he had already resigned from the OP No. 1 firm. Opposite party Nos. 3, 4 and 5 did not file their counters. Opposite party No. 6 filed her counter stating that the entire firm was managed and controlled by Sri M.V. Sastry, father of 5th OP and P.S. Bhaskar Rao brother-in-law of Mr. M.V. Sastry. She also represented that she had retired and is not concerned with the affairs of the firm. Opposite party No. 7 filed his counter stating that he had nothing to do with the partnership firm or its sister concern the Abheeshta Finance limited Company as neither he was the partner of the firm nor the director of the company.

4. The District Forum vide its order dated 28.11.2005 allowed the complaint as under:

"In the result, we direct the opposite parties 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 8 who are jointly and severally liable to:

(1) Refund the maturity amount of Rs. 2,50,000 (Rupees Two lakh fifty thousand only) under FDR Nos. 124, 125, 145, 147 and 230 with interest at the rate agreed in the FDRs from November, 2001 till the respective dates of maturity and thereafter @ 12% p.a. from the respective dates of maturity till the date of payment to the complainants 1 to 3 as per the name mentioned in the FDRs.

(2) Pay interest 12% p,a. on Rs. - 1,00,000 (Rupees one lakh only) under FDR No. 146 from a November, 2001 to 17.3.2003 to complainants 3 and 4.

(3) Refund the maturity amount of Rs. 70,680 (Rupees seventy thousand six hundred eighty only) to the complainants 1 and 2 with interest 12% p.a. from the date of maturity i.e. 4.7.2002 till the date of payment under FDR No. 187.

(4) Refund the maturity amount of Rs. 1,14,000 (Rupees one lakh fourteen thousand only) to complainants 1 and 2 with interest 12% p.a. from 6.12.2002 till the date of payment under FDR No. 273.

(5) Refund the maturity amount of Rs. 57,000 (Rupees fifty seven thousand only) under FDR No. 176 to complainant No. 2 with interest 12% p.a. from 17.6.2002 tilt the date of payment.

(6) Refund the maturity amount of Rs. 1,14,000 (Rupees one lakh fourt

Click Here to Read the rest of this document