BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

AT HYDERABAD.

F.A.1018/2010 against I.A. 285/2008 in

P.P. 131/2004 in C.D. 126/2004 Dist. Forum-II, Hyderabad.

Between:

1)  K.S.Raju,

(Wrongly described as Managing Director

Nagarjuna Finance Limited,

Digvijayam, Plot No.933 A

Road No.47, Jubilee Hills,

Hyderabad.                                                 ***                         Appellant/

O.P.

And

1. Smt. S. Ahalya Devi,

W/o. Late Satyanarayana Naidu  

H.No. 2-1-511/A, Nallkunta    

Near SBH, Hyderabad –44

2. S. Pranay Chandra (Minor)

Rep. by  Guardian Smt. S. Ahalya Devi,

3.  S. Yeshasvee (Minor)

Rep. by  Guardian Smt. S. Ahalya Devi,

4.  S. Tejaswee  (Minor)

Rep. by  Guardian Smt. S. Ahalya Devi,

5.  S. Praveen Chandra

C/o. Ahalya Devi

6.  S. Hiteswee

C/o. S. Ahalya Devi

7.  K. Sripriya

C/o. S. Ahalya Devi

8. K. Sree Raja Rajesh

C/o. S. Ahalya Devi

All are R/o. H.No. 2-1-511/A,

Nallkunta, Near SBH,

Hyderabad –44                                            ***                         Respondents/

Complainants.

9.  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.

F.A.1019/2010 against I.A. 284/2008 in

P.P. 112/2004 in C.D. 392/2003 Dist. Forum-II, Hyderabad.

Between:

1)  K.S.Raju,

(Wrongly described as Chairman

Nagarjuna Finance Limited,

Digvijayam, Plot No.933 A

Road No.47, Jubilee Hills,

Hyderabad.                                                 ***                         Appellant/

O.P.

And

1. Smt. P. Kusuma Kumari

W/o. P. Hanumantha Rao          

R/o. 3C, Vishal Towers        

Navodaya Colony, Yellareddyguda

Hyderabad –73                                            ***                         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.                 These appeals are  preferred against the orders  of Dist. Forum dismissing  the  petitions filed to delete  his  name in P.P. proceedings.

2.                 The facts leading to  filing of the appeals  is  that on the complaint filed  by the complainants 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 complaints  directing the said opposite party to pay  the amount covered under the FDRs together with interest, compensation and costs.

3.                 While so, the complainants filed petitions under Sec.27 of the C.P. Act. impleading the appellant  as party  though  he was not concerned.  On that, the appellants filed IA. Nos.284 and 285 of 2008 alleging that  he was not concerned nor any  order could be  passed against him.  However,  he was impleaded as party  to recover the amounts  though  he was 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 complaints were  filed for recovery of the amounts deposited under the FDRs against M/s.   Nagarjuna Finance Limited.  For the first time, at the time of filing  penalty proceedings under Sec.27 of C.P. Act, the complainants  impleaded the present appellant  without substantiating as to how  they  could implead the present appellant, he  being not concerned to the main proceedings.   The P.Ps.  were  filed for recovery of the said amount.  If the parties against whom proceedings u/s 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 appellant had filed Form No.32 under the Companies Act to show that  he was not having anything to do with the company  w.e.f. 16.9.200  against  whom  the complaint was filed.  At any rate, the complainants   could not have impleaded him .  It is not the appellant  but the complainant has been circumventing the orders by introducing new parties and intends to collect the amounts.   At no stretch of imagination, the appellant  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 appeals  are   allowed.  The orders of the District Forum are set aside.  No costs.

1)      _______________________________

PRESIDENT                 

2)      ________________________________

 MEMBER

3)      ________________________________

 MEMBER

   Dt.  28.  10.   2010.