BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
AT HYDERABAD.
F.A.1017/2010 against I.A. 295/2008 in
P.P. 80/2005 in C.D. 423/2004 Dist. Forum-II, Hyderabad.
Between:
1) K.S.Raju,
(Wrongly described as
Chairman and Managing Director
Nagarjuna Finance Limited,
Digvijayam, Plot No.933 A
Road No.47, Jubilee Hills,
Hyderabad.
2. S. Chari
(Wrongly described as Managing Director
Nagarjuna Finance Limited,
Lumbini Lake View Apartments,
Raj Bhavan Road,Somajiguda,
Hyderabad. *** Appellants/
O.Ps.
And
1. V. Rajamallaiah, S/o. Butchaiah
Age: 45 years, H.No. 2-2-16/1/B
E-8, D.D. Colony, Rajarajeswari
Hyderabad –7. *** Respondent/
Complainant.
2. M/s. Nagarjuna Finance Ltd.
Rep. by its Managing Director
H.No. 1-2-597/12, Valmikinagar
Lower Tank Bund Road,
Domalguda, Hyderabad-29. *** Resp/O.P.
Counsel for the Appellants : Mr. M. Raj Kumar.
Counsel for the Respondent : Mr. V.G.S. Rao.
CORAM: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT,
SMT. M. SHREESHA, MEMBER
SRI R. L. NARASIMHA RAO, MEMBER.
THURSDAY, THIS THE TWENTY EIGTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND TEN
Oral Order (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice D.Appa Rao, President)
***
1. This is an appeal preferred against the orders dismissing their petitions filed to delete their names in P.P. proceedings.
2. The facts leading to the filing of the appeal are that on the complaint filed against M/s.Nagarjuna Finance Ltd. for recovery of the amounts deposited under Fixed Deposit Receipts issued by the said Company, the District Forum allowed the complaint directing the said opposite party to pay the amount covered under the FDRs together with interest, compensation and costs.
3. While so, the complainant filed petition under Sec.27 of the C.P.Act. registered it as PP.No.81/2005 impleading the present appellants as parties though there were not concerned. On that, the appellants filed IA. Nos.294 and 295 of 2008 alleging that they were not concerned nor order could be passed against them. However, they were impleaded as parties to recover the amount though they were not responsible or liable for the amounts to be paid to the complainants.
4. The District Forum, after observing that the order has become final, and that the applications were filed in order to circumvent the final order that was passed in C.D, dismissed the applications.
5. The point that arises for consideration is whether the order of the District Forum is vitiated by material irregularity or illegality?
6. Admittedly, the complaint was filed for recovery of the amounts deposited under the FDRs against the Nagarjuna Finance Limited. For the first time, at the time of filing penalty proceedings under Sec.27 of C.P. Act, the complainant impleaded the present appellants without substantiating as to how they could implead the present appellants, they being not concerned to the main proceedings. The P.P. was filed for recovery of the said amount. If the parties against whom proceedings under Sec.27 are initiated, are no way concerned it would lead to unnecessary complications. The parties who are impleaded would be forced to pay the amount irrespective of the fact whether they are concerned or not.
7. In fact the appellants had filed Form No.32 under the Companies Act to show that have anything to do with the company w.e.f. 16.9.200 and 31.1.2001 respectively against whom the complaint was filed. At any rate, the complainant could not have impleaded them. It is not the appellants but the complainant has been circumventing the orders by introducing new parties and intends to collect the amounts. At no stretch of imagination, the appellants could be impleaded representing Nagarjuna Finance Limited. Both the orders passed in IAs are totally unjust. It does not stand to judicial scrutiny.
8. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The orders of the District Forum are set aside. No costs.
1) _______________________________
PRESIDENT
2) ________________________________
MEMBER
3) ________________________________
MEMBER
Dt. 28. 10. 2010.
*pnr
