AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
MR. Justice A. Venkatarami Reddy, President-The complainant who is respondent in this appeal filed C.D. No. 50/91 on the file of the District Forum Gunter against the opposite party i.e. Amaravathi Chits Fund (Pvt.) Limited, Managing Partners, Bethamcherla, Purushotham Naidu, Chilakaluripet for payment of the installments paid and also Rs. 10,000/- as compensation.
THE basis of the claim is that the complainant is a subscriber for a chit of Rs. 25,000/- the monthly subscription being Rs. 1,000/-. THE complainant paid five monthly installments beginning from 9.5.1988. He was not a prized bidder in any of the auction. All of a sudden, the opposite party closed the business without completing the chit scheme. As they are unable to repay the amount, the above complaint was filed. B. Purushotham Naidu filed a counter. He contended that he had no connection whatsoever with the chit fund company and generally denied the other allegations. In view of the advertisement regarding, opening of the chit in Andhra Jyothi dated 25.10.1987, wherein it was mentioned that Purushotham Naidu was the Managing Partner of the chit fund company and also as he signed the balance sheet as the Managing Director, The District Forum held that he had connections with the chit fund.
With regard to the next contention that the other directors partners should have been made parties, the District Forum held, that the complaint is against the company and it is being represented by the Managing Director. Hence it is not necessary to make other directors as parties. It accordingly directed the opposite party to pay Rs. 5,000/- with interest at 18 % p.a. from the date of last installment, i.e. 29.7.1988 and a sum of Rs. 3,000/- as compensation.
IN this appeal it is contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant that Purushotham Naidu has nothing to do with the chit fund. We are not prepared to accept the said contention in view of the advertisement referred to in the order of the District Forum and also the balance sheet prepared for the year, 1988. With regard to the payment of the amount by the complainant it was supported by the pass book which shows payments of installments and also five notices were sent to him for conducting monthly auction. Hence it cannot be disputed that the complainant is a subscriber and paid five installments. It is next contended by the appellant, that the Managing Director cannot be made personally liable. But, from the order there is no such direction by the District Forum. It is therefore not necessary to go into that question.
IN the result, the C.D.A. fails and is dismissed with costs of Rs. 100/-. Appeal dismissed with costs.