Partners are jointly and severally liable for acts of the firm, and a retired partner's liability persists unless a discharge agreement is established.

ORDER

The present Revision Petition, under Section 58 (1) (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (for short “the Act”) has been filed by the Petitioner challenging the order dated 25.11.2020 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab (for short “the State Commission”) whereby the Appeal No.459 of 2019 filed by the Petitioner challenging the order dated 09.05.2019 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Moga (for short “the District Forum”) in Complaint No.97 of 2017 was dismissed. The Complaint was allowed by the District Forum.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the Respondent No.1 (hereinafter called as “the Complainant”) opened an account no.370 with the Petitioner and the other Respondent wherein he deposited a sum of 6 Lakhs. A passbook was then issued to the Complainant with the assurance that he could withdraw this amount at any time. On different occasions, the Complainant kept depositing and withdrawing the amount. On 31.10.2015, an amount of 3,80,000/- was in credit with the Petitioner. In the month of July 2017, the Complainant approached the Petitioner for refund of the said amount. However, the money was not refunded to him. He kept visiting the office of the Petitioner as well as the other Respondent with request for refund of his balance amount but the same was not done. He then filed the Complaint before the District Forum seeking refund of the amount of 3,80,000/- along with interest.

3. The Opposite Party No.1 (Respondent No.2 herein) did not appear before the District Forum and was proceeded ex parte. Only the Petitioner had filed his written statement. It was denied that the Complainant deposited the sum of 6 Lakhs. It was further submitted that the Petitioner was given interest on the deposited amount of the Complainant and on 03.05.2016, the Company had cleared his account vide voucher no.309 and receipt of the said voucher was duly signed by the Complainant.

4. Parties led their evidence before the District Forum and the District Forum relying on the evidences led before it and after hearing the arguments of the learned Counsel for the parties has held as under:

9. It is admitted case of the parties that that in order to save some money for the betterment of his future, the complainant opened an account with opposite parties and deposited money of Rs.6 lacs on

07.04.2012 and thereafter, the complainant used to deposit the amount with the said firm on different dates and also used to withdraw the sum during the period 07.04.2012 to 31.10.2015 and till 31.10.2015, there was an outstanding amount of Rs.3,80,000/- due towards the Opposite Parties. First of all, the copy of Partnership deed Ex.OP2/2 placed on record by Opposite Party No. 2 itself shows that Sukhmander Singh, Atamjit Singh (Opposite Party No. 2), Hardeep Kaur and -4-

Manjit Kaur were the partners of Opposite Party No.1 company i.e. M/s.Grewal Brar Finance Company and admittedly, the complainant was having the account with said Grewal Brar Finance Company. In this way, all the partners have assets and liabilities of the said company i.e. Opposite Party No.1 in which the complainant has deposited his hard earned amount to save his future. Therefore, the Opposite Party No. 2 can not say that he does not have any liability towards the complainant.

As per Partnership Act, each and every partner is jointly and severally liable for the act of the firm and for dues of the firm, which was done in the period, when he was partner of the firm. Even party can claim and recover the entire amount due towards the firm from a single partner. As per section 25 of the Indian Partnership Acts of the firm "every partner is liable, jointly with all the other part