G.BHAGYALAXMI vs A.V.SUBBARATHNAMMA

WE do not find any ground or basis for interfering with the order of the Cuddapah District Forum dated 26.8.1997m O.P. No. 419/1996 questioned in this appeal by the 9th opposite party in that O.P. The learned Counsel for the appellant says that the fact of the complainant i.e. the 1st respondent in this appeal, depositing a sum of Rs. 15,000/- with Kamadhenu Financiers under general receipt No. 604 dated 28.2.1992 (marked as Ex. A-l) is not in dispute.

THE contentions raised before the District Forum were: (i) that the partnership firm itself was not made a party; (ii) that the complaint was barred by time; (iii) that there was no service involved because only a deposit was made and repayment of the deposit was claimed; (iv) that the appellant was only an employee and not a partner of Kamadhenu Financiers; and finally (v) that the Cuddapah District Forum had no territorial jurisdiction. All these contentions were elaborately and comprehensively considered by the District Forum. As regards the first objection that the partnership firm was not made a party, the District Forum held that the partnership had no juristic personality/and that as the partners were made parties that cannot be an objection to be entertained. We asked the learned Counsel for the appellant whether any plea was taken that the partnership was registered. He is unable to say that such a plea was taken by the appellant. In the absence of such plea, the objection that the partnership was not made a party is without any basis. If it is an un-registered partnership it does not have event that limited legal personality conferred on firms registered under the Partnership Act, and it cannot be sued in its name. Therefore, we do not find any substance in this objection. As regards the question of limitation, the District Forum found that the last interest payment was made on 31.12.1994 and that the complaint was presented on 16.11.1996 within two years from that date; therefore, it rightly held that the complaint was within time; and we may also notice here that the opposite parties including the appellant did not deny the factum of deposit and that it had to be repaid by the firm. The contention that deposit holder is not a consumer is no longer res-integra because the question has been settled by several decisions of the National Commission. In Neela Vasant Raje v. Amogh Industries, 1993 (3) CPR 434 (NC)=1986-1995 CONSUMER 446 (NS), the National Commission held that when a company or firm invited deposits promissing attractive rates of interest it amounted to rendering service and that the Tribunals under the Act had jurisdiction to entertain complaints for non- payment of the deposit amounts. In K. Kasi Annapurna v. Smt. Vemuri Bharathi, the National Commission held as follows : "It is well settled that the failure to refund the amounts deposited with any financial institution on maturity will amount to deficiency in service".

In the present case also it is not denied by the partners of the firm in question that it was .receiving deposits. As regards the contention that the appellant was not a partner, the District Forum relied on Ex. A-3 which was certified copy of the order of the Madras High Court in C.S. No. 187/1996 and Application No. 1260/ 1996 which clearly showed that all the opposite parties in the O.P. including the 9th opposite party (the appellant herein) were shown as partners of the firm i.e. Kamadhenu Financiers and therefore rejected that contention. Finally, as regards the contention that the District Forum lacks territorial jurisdiction, the District Forum found that as the interest amounts were sent to Cuddapah by the firm a part of the cause of action arose at Cuddapah. We are not inclined to reject this reasoning of the District Forum.

WE, therefore, uphold the order of the District Forum. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. No costs. Appeal dismissed.