Gajingi Srinivasa Rao vs Adula Laxmi Devi

AS per averments made in the Complaint, the husband of the complainant-respondent No. l herein, during his life-time, had deposited Rs. 30,000 on 15.7.1996 and 14.8.1996 in Navodaya Hire Purchase Financiers, Jagitial (for short ''the Firm'') with date of maturity as 14.7.2002 and 13.8.2002 and maturity value as Rs. 60,000. Opposite Party No. 2-petitioner herein was working as Managing Director and Opposite Party No. 1-respondent No. 2 herein was working as Managing Partner of the Firm, at the relevant time. Opposite parties issued Fixed Deposit Receipts bearing Nos. 501, 502, 504, 554, 556 and 558 and when the complainant demanded the maturity value from the Opposite Parties, they refused to pay the same on the ground that the Firm was closed in the year 1997.

BEING aggrieved, complainant filed the Complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Karimnagar (for short ''the District Forum'') praying for a direction to the opposite parties to pay the maturity value of Rs. 60,000 with interest @ 12% and Rs. 1,000 as costs.

ON being served, respondent No. 2 remained ex parte and Counsel for the petitioner filed the counter stating that he was neither the Member nor Partner of Navodaya Hire Purchase and Financiers, Jagitial. That the petitioner had not issued the Fixed Deposit Certificates to the complainant. That the Certificates filed by the complainant were forged. That the son of the complainant had signed the Deposit Certificates in the capacity of Managing Partner which shows that the complaint had been filed to extract money from the petitioner. That the son of the complainant is also a Partner and is liable to share the profits and losses of the Firm. That the Finance Company is not in existence and, therefore, the question of refunding the maturity amount by the petitioner did not arise. That since the complainant''s son signed the Deposit Certificates, no cause of action accrues to the complainant to file the complaint. Denying the allegations made in the complaint, petitioner prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

DISTRICT Forum, after taking into consideration the pleadings and the evidence led by the petitioner and the reply filed by respondent No. 2, allowed the complaint as the facts stated in the complaint and the evidence led by the complainant were not rebutted by filing any affidavit or document. It may be stated that Opposite Party No. 2, after filing the Written Statement, did not lead any evidence in support of the averments made in the Written Statement. The petitioner and Opposite Party No. 2 were directed to pay Rs. 60,000 towards the maturity value together with interest @ 9% p.a. from the respective dates of maturity, i.e., 14.7.2002 and 13.8.2002 till the date of payment. Rs. 1,000 were awarded as costs.

AGGRIEVED against the Order passed by the District Forum, petitioner filed the Appeal before the A. P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad (for short ''the State Commission'') which has been dismissed by the Impugned Order. It has been held that the petitioner, after filing the Written Statement, did not file any affidavit in support of the averments made in the Written Statement and lead any documentary evidence to substantiate his case.

AGGRIEVED against the Order passed by the State Commission, petitioner has preferred the Revision Petition.

COUNSEL for the petitioner contends that the petitioner had filed the Partnership Deed before the State Commission which was not taken into consideration by the State Commission on the ground that the same has not been filed before the District Forum. Counsel for the petitioner states that, as per the said Partnership Deed, petitioner was neither the Partner nor the Managing Director of the Firm. Another submission made by learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the son of the respondent is a Partner in the Firm.

AS against this, learned Counsel for the respondent contends that the petitioner has produced the Partnership Deed of the reconstituted Firm dated 8.2.2006. That the petitioner was the Partner in the original Partnership Deed dated 20.6.1996 and was shown as such in the said Partnership Deed dated 20.6.1996 which was dissolved in the year 1997. That as per Partnership Deed dated 8.2.2006, N. Mallesham is the Partner whereas the name of the son of the respondent is A. Mallesham who was neither a Partner nor Managing Director of the Firm.

AFTER taking into consideration the two documents, we are of the opinion that the petitioner was shown as Partner in the original Partnership Deed dated 20.6.1996 and, being a Partner, would be liable to pay the amount as awarded by the Fora below to the respondent. Partnership Deed dated 8.2.2006 produced by the petitioner is of a reconstituted Firm in which the petitioner has not been shown as a Partner. Since, the respondent had invested his money in Fixed Deposits in the originally constituted Firm of which the petitioner was a Partner, he would be liable to pay the amount to the respondent jointly and severally with the other Partners of the Firm. Similarly, N. Mallesham has been shown as a Partner in the Partnership Deed dated 8.2.2006. He was not a Partner in the Partnership Deep dated 20.6.1996. The name of the son of the respondent is A. Mallesham and not N. Mallesham. N. Mallesham, who is shown as a Partner in the Partnership Deed dated 8.2.2006, is not the son of the respondent. Thus, the contention raised by the Counsel for the petitioner that the son of the respondent is a Partner in the Firm cannot be accepted.

THERE is no dispute that the respondent had deposited the amount with the Firm in Fixed Deposits, the maturity dates of which were 14.7.2002 and 13.8.2002 and the Firm in which the money was deposited failed to pay the amount on maturity. The Fora below have rightly directed the petitioner, being the Partner, to pay the amount deposited by the respondent along with interest.

FOR the reasons stated above, we find no merit in this Revision Petition and dismiss the same with costs which are assessed at Rs. 10,000. Revision Petition dismissed.