SRI RAJA RAJESHWARA ESTATE FINANCE vs SINGU MURALI

-THIS order will govern the disposal of Revision Petition Nos. 908/2007, 909/2007 and 910/2007 which arise out of identical order (s) dated 13. 11. 2005 of Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad in F. A. Nos. 1286/2004, 1289/2004 and 1290/2004 allowing appeals against similar order (s) dated 7. 1. 2004 dismissing Complaint Case Nos. 101/03, 100/03 and 98/03. Respondents in R. P. Nos. 909/2007 and 910/2007 are the sons of the respondent in R. P. No. 908/2007.

FOR deciding these revisions, facts are taken from R. P. No. 908/2007. Petitioner/opposite party started finance business in the year 1997. Petitioner firm introduced Fixed Deposit Scheme to pay double the amount of deposit after five years. Under the scheme the respondent/complainant deposited a sum of Rs. 50,000 on 14. 3. 1997. Petitioner closed the business in the year 1998 and did not refund the maturity amount of Rs. 1 lakh to the respondent on demand on 24. 12. 2002. Respondent, therefore, filed complaint seeking certain reliefs against the petitioner. Complaints by the respondents in remaining two revisions were filed on similar allegations against the petitioner firm.

Since nobody put in appearance on behalf of petitioner firm despite service of notice, it was proceeded ex parte. Vide said order (s) dated 7. 1. 2004 the District Forum dismissed the complaints on the ground of their not being maintainable as the respondents were the partners in petitioner firm and also that they owed certain amount to the firm. Appeals filed against District Forum''s order (s) wherein petitioner again did not put in appearance, were allowed taking note of the fixed deposit receipt (s) as also partnership deed dated 8. 4. 1996 whereunder the respondents were not the partners of the petitioner firm State Commission had directed the petitioner to pay the maturity amount of the deposits with interest @ 9% p. a. from 14. 3. 2002 till realization to the respondents.

SHORT submission advanced by Mrs. K. Radha Rao for petitioner is that as the respondents were partners of the petitioner firm the three complaints were not maintainable. She pointed out that the respondents joined the firm in the year 1997 and, therefore, their names did not figure in the partnership deed dated 8. 4. 1996. Submission is, however, without any merit. As noticed above, petitioner firm was ex parte before both the Fora below. In support of the plea of respondents having joined the firm as partners in 1997 it has not led any evidence whatsoever. In absence of such evidence and partnership deed dated 8. 4. 1996 not having been amended to include the names of respondents, the respondents cannot be held to be the partners of petitioner firm. Complaints filed by the respondents were, thus, maintainable. There is no illegality or jurisdictional error in the order passed by State Commission warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction under Section 21 (b) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Accordingly, these revision petitions are dismissed. Revision Petitions dismissed.