P.Ramaswamy vs K.MARIA

THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 10th day of October, 1996 in O.P. No. 87/1996 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Tuticorin.

THE appellant is the 6th opposite party. THE first respondent is the complainant while the respondents 2 to 6 are respectively opposite parties 1 to 5. The first opposite party, it is said, is a Finance Company going by name Bagampiriyal Finance Ltd. It is a Company registered under the Companies Act. The second opposite party is the Managing Director while the opposite parties 3 to 6, it is said, are Directors of the said Company.

The complainant, it is said, invested on 3.8.1994 a sum of Rs. 33,500/- and on 3.11.1994 a sum of Rs. 16,500/- with the first opposite party Finance Company which agreed to pay interest at the rate of 36% per annum on the deposit so made. The first opposite party Finance Company it appears, paid interest as promised for the first three months and thereafter committed default in effecting the payment of the interest to the complainant. Despite demand emerged from the complainant, the first opposite party Finance Company did not at all honour its commitment in paying the monthly interest as promised. This apart, the first opposite party Finance Company also closed its business.

IT is in this backdrop and setting, the complainant knocked at the doors of the Forum below claiming that the act of the opposite parties in not honouring their commitment of paying the interest as promised on the deposit he had made with the first opposite party Finance Company besides not returning the deposit amount by the closure of the said Company would tantamount to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and also for certain reliefs as prayed for in the complaint. The opposite parties 2, 4 and 6 remained ex parte.

OPPOSITE parties 1, 3 and 5 alone contested the matter by filing counters. The sum and substance of the contention raised by them was to the effect that they are not liable to pay the amount to the complainant and there was no deficiency in service on their part. The Forum below after taking into consideration the materials placed on record, recorded a finding that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in either not paying the amount of interest as promised by them or not paying the amount of the deposit by the closure of the Company. It is on such finding the Forum below directed the first opposite party Finance Company as well as the Directors/opposite parties 2-6 to pay jointly and severally the deposit amount of Rs. 50,000/- together with agreed interest @ 36% per annum from 1.2.1995 till realisation and another sum of Rs. 1,000/- by way of costs to the complainant within two months from the date of its order. Aggrieved by the order as above, the 6th opposite party resorted to the present action by engaging a Counsel of his choice, namely learned Counsel M/s. S. Chandrasekharan and R. Tholgappian.

ON service of process, the first respondent/complainant entered appearance through a Counsel of his choice, namely learned Counsel Mr. V. Balaji.

RESPONDENTS 2 to 5/opposite parties 1 to 4 remained absent despite service of process. Respondent-6/opposite party-5 entered appearance through a Counsel of her choice, namely learned Counsel Mr. P. Rathinadurai.

When this matter came up for hearing before us today, learned Counsel appearing for respondent-1 and respondent-6 were called absent and no representation was made on their behalf. Even the respondents 2 to 5 were called absent. The fact that learned Counsel representing respondent-1 and respondent-6 were absent and no one represented for respondent-2 to respondent-5 does not mean that we cannot dispose of the appeal on merits, of course, after hearing learned Counsel M/s. N. Prema Latha representing learned Counsel M/s. S. Chandrasekharan and R. Tholgappian appearing for the appellant/6th opposite party and also on perusal of the materials placed on record and that is exactly what we have done in this case.

THE said learned Counsel submitted that the appellant/6th opposite party was not at all functioning as a Director at the relevant point of time in the sense of himself submitting his resignation to the first opposite party Finance Company and such being the case, he cannot at all be mulcted with any liability for the payment of the amount due by the opposite party Finance Company to the complainant. This sort of an argument as projected by the said learned Counsel wears credible look at the face of it but a little bit of probe if made into such an argument, the ugliness taking shelter there under would get exposed. THE appellant/6th opposite party admittedly did not contest the matter before the Forum below by filing a counter. No material worth the name in the shape of any document is also traceable to the records as to his not functioning as a Director at the relevant point of time. Looking at the case from any angle, we are of the view that the appeal deserves to be dismissed.

IN fine, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. We, however, make no order as to costs on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. Appeal dismissed.