Kakaustam Raghunatham vs Polasani Rama Devi

BOTH these revision petitions have been filed by the petitioner, who was opposite party No.4 in two separate consumer disputes No.32 & 33 of 2005 before the District Forum. Challenge in these revision petitions is to two separate but similar impugned orders passed by the A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad (State Commission for short) on 19.2.2007 in F.A. Nos.19 & 20 of 2007. Issues involved in both these revision petitions being similar, they are being disposed of by this common order.

FACTUAL matrix in respect of the two revision petitions may be stated as under: - Seven complainants, who are respondents No.1 to 7 herein, filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Karim Nagar to the effect that they deposited the certain amounts in a fixed deposit scheme floated by the four OPs named in the complaint including OP No.4, who is the petitioner herein, under the name and style of M/s Hindusree Securities (Bharat) Limited and that the OPs promised to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- on investment of Rs.3,750/- by the fixed deposit holder after a period of 78 months. It was alleged by the complainants that when they approached the OPs for payment of maturity value, they failed to pay the same although the FDRs had matured by that time and hence the request for appropriate relief before the District Forum. Details of the fixed deposit certificates were as under: - S.N Name of the depositor FDR No. Rs. Date of maturity Maturity Value Total Payable 1. P. Rama Devi 16794 3750 16.9.2003 10000 16797 3750 16.9.2003 10000 16799 3750 16.9.2003 10000 30000 2. P. Pushpalatha 16779 3750 25.9.2003 10000 10000 3. P.Rameshwar Rao 16784 3750 25.9.2003 10000 10000 4. U. Swapna 16783 3750 25.9.2003 10000 10000 5. P. Pushamma 16782 3750 25.9.2003 10000 10000 6. U. Laxmi 16778 3750 25.9.2003 10000 10000 7. K. Swaroopa 16787 3750 25.9.2003 10000 10000

While OPs 1 to 4 remained ex-parte before the District Forum, OP No.4, petitioner herein, did file a counter affidavit denying the allegations made in the complaint and stating that the OPs did not establish any finance company under the name and style of M/s Hindusree Securities (Bharat) Limited and that the OPs are not Managing Director and Directors of the said company nor they issued any fixed deposit certificates to the complainants. It was prayed that the complaint be dismissed since there is no obligation on him to pay the maturity value to the complainant.

On appraisal of the issues and the evidence adduced, the District Forum allowed the complaint directing the opposite parties to pay the maturity value to the complainants as shown in the foregoing table with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of the complaint, i.e. from 3.2.2005 till the date of realization together with cost of Rs.1000/-.

AGGRIEVED by the said order of the District Forum, only OP No.4, petitioner herein, preferred an appeal before the State Commission, which also came to be dismissed by the impugned order of the State Commission and hence the revision petition. Six complainants, who are respondents No.1 to 6 herein, filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Karim Nagar to the effect that they deposited certain amounts in a fixed deposit scheme floated by the four OPs named in the complaint including OP No.4, who is the petitioner herein, under the name and style of M/s Hindusree Securities (Bharat) Limited and that the OPs promised to pay an amount of Rs.3,000/- on investment of Rs.1,500/- by the fixed deposit holder after a period of 78 months. It was alleged by the complainants that when they approached the OPs for payment of maturity value, they failed to pay the same although the FDRs had matured by that time and hence the request for appropriate relief before the District Forum. Details of the fixed deposit certificates were as under: - S.N Name of the depositor FDR No. Rs. Maturity Value Total Payable 1. P. Rama Devi 16791 1500 3000 16786 1500 3000 6000 2. P. Sravani 16780 1500 3000 16779 1500 3000 16790 1500 3000 9000 3. N. Narendar Rao 16781 1500 3000 3000 4. K. Shankaraiah 16788 1500 3000 3000 5. T. Pramila 16777 1500 3000 3000 6. T. Srinivasa Rao 16776 1500 3000 3000

WHILE OPs 1 to 4 remained ex-parte before the District Forum, OP No.4, petitioner herein, did file a counter affidavit denying the allegations made in the complaint and stating that the OPs did not establish any finance company under the name and style of M/s Hindusree Securities (Bharat) Limited and that the OPs are not Managing Director and Directors of the said company nor they issued any fixed deposit certificates to the complainants. It was prayed that the complaint be dismissed since there is no obligation on him to pay the maturity value to the complainant. On appraisal of the issues and the evidence adduced, the District Forum allowed the complaint directing the opposite parties to pay the maturity value to the complainants as shown in the foregoing table with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of complaint, i.e. from 3.2.2005 till the date of realization together with cost of Rs.1000/-. Aggrieved by the said order of the District Forum, only OP No.4, petitioner herein, preferred an appeal before the State Commission, which also came to be dismissed by the impugned order of the State Commission and hence the revision petition. We have heard counsel for the petitioner and the complainants/respondents herein. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he resigned as a Director from the firm in the name and style of M/s Hindusree Securities (Bharat) Limited on 3.8.1998. The Board of Directors in the minutes of the board meeting accepted the resignation of the petitioner w.e.f. 3.8.1998.

IT is contended that once the petitioner resigned his post as a Director, he is in no way concerned with the firm after his resignation which has also been accepted by the Registrar of the Companies. Learned counsel argued that since the date of maturity in the fixed deposit certificates in question is during the period of September, 2002 and September, 2003, the petitioner cannot be held responsible for the payment of the maturity value since he had already resigned on 3.8.1998. In any case, the petitioner is in no way concerned with the respondents/OPs and the acts of the firm and hence he is not liable to pay any amount to the complainants/respondents. IT has further been averred on behalf of the petitioner that the fora below erred in holding the petitioner responsible alongwith other OPs by ignoring the counter affidavit filed by him before the District Forum, in which he had denied all the allegations of the complainants. IT is also denied by the petitioner that he ever signed any of the fixed deposit certificates in question which according to him were forged, fabricated and concocted by the complainants. In view of all these aspects, learned counsel pleaded that there is no case against the petitioner, who was no longer a Director in the alleged firm since he has resigned in 1998 which was almost 4 to 5 years before the date of maturity of the fixed deposit certificates. The impugned orders of the State Commission are, therefore, liable to be set aside.

ON the other hand, learned counsel for the complainants/respondents has submitted that all the deposits covered by the two revision petitions, were made by the respective complainants with the firm of OPs in the year 1997 when the petitioner was also a Director in the OP firm. He further submitted that as per the record, the petitioner resigned on 3.8.1998 but his resignation came to be submitted to the Registrar office on 22.10.1999 by the OP firm but the important aspect according to counsel for the respondents was that when the deposits were made by the respondents, the petitioner was on the Board of Directors and hence cannot escape the responsibility. Not only this, he has also put his signature on the fixed deposit certificates. It was also argued by learned counsel that mere denial of responsibility cannot absolve the petitioner from joint and several liability alongwith other OPs. He further submitted that the petitioner has been changing his defence from time to time just to escape his liability in the matter inasmuch as he denied existence of the OP firm by submitting that no such firm was ever established by the OPs but later he has taken the plea of having resigned as a Director from that firm on 3.8.1998. Since admittedly he was the Director when the fixed deposits were made with the firm for which the fixed deposit certificates duly signed by him and other OPs were issued, he shall be liable for the maturity amounts and cannot escape the liability to pay back. He submitted that both the fora below have looked into all the relevant aspects carefully based on the documents and other evidence adduced by the parties and hence there is no scope for any interference in the impugned order based on the concurrent finding of facts. Having heard the submissions of learned counsels, we have also perused the record. It is seen from the written statement filed by the petitioner before the District Forum that at the initial stage it was denied by him that he himself or with anybody ever established any finance business as alleged in the complaints. It was also denied that the opposite parties were Managing Director or Directors of the said firm. Later on, it appears that he has changed his plea and now it has been pleaded on his behalf that he resigned on 3.8.1998 and hence even no longer concerned with the affairs of the OP firm at the time of maturity of the fixed deposits. However, it has been fairly admitted by counsel for the petitioner that he was the Director of the OP firm at the time of accepting the deposits under the fixed deposit certificates. We have seen the fixed deposit certificates, copies of which have been placed on record. We also find that in spite of the opportunity afforded to them, none of the OPs found it appropriate to defend themselves before the District Forum and the State Commission by adducing evidence in their favour to counter the allegations made by the complainants. Under the circumstances, both the fora below have returned their concurrent findings in favour of the complainants based on the facts before them which obviously went unchallenged by the OPs. In this view of the matter, we do not see any reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of the fora below accepting the complaints. The revision petitions being devoid of merit are liable to be dismissed. They are dismissed accordingly with no order as to cost.