By Smt. Padmini Sudheesh, President:

 

            The case of complainant is as follows: Complainant was a kuri subscriber of respondents vide ticket No.15. The kuri was commenced on 23.10.2000 and terminated on 23.7.2004. The complainant had remitted the entire instalments and it was prized to the complainant on the 30^th instalment. So the complainant was entitled to get Rs.1,00,000/- after reducing the lawful discount. But it was not paid. Hence this complaint.

 

            2. The counter filed by respondents-1, 2 and 5 is as follows: It is true that the complainant had subscribed victory kuri ticket No.15 as stated in the complaint.   It is also true that it was prized on 23.3.2003. As per the agreement this amount of Rs.1,00,000/- was retained in the firm from 4.5.2003 and interest was regularly paid to the future instalments from 4.5.03. The complainant had conveniently suppressed these facts. At the time of retaining the amount the complainant had agreed to retain this amount with the firm as a loan and to be released only by end of 2005. So the petition is premature. It is to be noted that the kuri instalments since 4.5.2003 was also paid from the interest of this amount. The averment in the petition that the petitioner paid the entire kuri subscription from her hand is absolutely wrong. She has not paid any amount. As stated earlier the entire instalment after 4.5.03 was paid from the interest accrued from the amount retained in the firm. The petitioner has not demanded this amount as her kuri was paid from interest of this amount as agreed. Hence there is no deficiency in service.

 

            3. The respondents-3 and 4 filed statement adopting the counter of respondents-1, 2 and 5.  

 

            4. The only point for consideration is the maintainability of the complaint.

 

            5. The Point: It is stated that complainant is expired on 5.5.06. So I.A.666/06 and I.A.667/06 were filed by the legal heirs of complainant to implead them as additional complainants and also for consequential amendment. I.A.667/06 is the amendment application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of C.P.C.   The I.A. was allowed on 11.5.2007 and no time prescribed to amend. As per Order 6 Rule 18 if no time is limited the amendment shall be carried out within 14 days from the date of order. Rule 18 also states that the party shall not be permitted to amend after the expiration of such limited time.

 

 

            6. In the present case the amendment is not carried out till this time. So the complaint is liable to be dismissed on this ground only.

 

            7. In the result, the complaint is dismissed.