By Smt. Padmini Sudheesh, President: The case of complainant is that the complainant was a kuri subscriber of first respondent vide ticket No.41 and the said kuri was started on 5.4.02. He had remitted 40 instalments towards the kuri and when he gone to remit the 41st instalment it was seen that the firm was closed. He was understood that the firm was stopped and he was unable to continue the kuri. He demanded to return the amount to the 4th respondent and it was not returned. He also approached the other directors but it was in futile. Hence the complaint. 2. The counter of 3rd respondent is that he had resigned from the directorship on 1.3.05 after transferring his shares to the managing director Paul.P.J. and the matter was intimated to the Companies of Registrar on 22.4.05. After that he is in no way responsible for the activities of the company. He denied the other averments in the complaint. 3. The averments in the counter of respondents-4 and 5 are that these respondents resigned from the directorship on 18.4.05 and it was intimated to the Registrar of Companies. After that they are in no way connected to the activities of the Company. The first respondent firm is still functioning and the averments in the complaint that the company is not functioning is incorrect. Hence dismiss. 4. The counter of 7th respondent is to the effect that this respondent is now not the director of the company. He had resigned from the company on 31.5.05. Since the first respondent is a private limited firm this respondent has no personal liability towards the defaults of the company. This respondent is an unnecessary party. He denied all the other averments in the complaint. 5. The other respondents remained absent and set exparte. 6. The points for consideration are: (1) Is there any deficiency in service on the part of respondents? (2) If so, reliefs and costs. 7. The evidence consists of Ext. P1 and the oral testimony of PW1 on the part of complainant and Exts. R1 and R2 and oral testimony of RW1 on the part of respondents-4 and 5. 8. Points: It is the case of complainant that he was a kuri subscriber of the first respondent and he had remitted 40 instalments towards the kuri. The respondents-2 to 8 are the directors and they are liable to return the amount remitted by him. The complainant produced Ext. P1 kuri passbook to show the remittances made by him and it would show that 40 instalments were remitted by him. Each instalments carries Rs.775/- only. According to him, after that he was not able to remit the amount since the company was not in function. He is examined as PW1 and he deposed that he has remitted 40 instalments and he is entitled to get Rs.31,000/-. During cross examination by the respondents there is nothing brought against the case put by him. 9. The respondents-3, 4, 5 and 7 contested the case and others remained exparte. The 7th respondent taken the contention that he had abstained from the activities of the company on 31.5.05. In consequent to a fall happened to him he is in no way connected with the company. He has not adduced any evidence to prove the version put forward by him. He has not submitted any oral or documentary evidence. The 3rd respondent also did not adduce any evidence. The contention taken by the 3rd respondent in the counter that he had resigned from the directorship and transferred his shares to the then managing director Paul.P.J. and intimated this matter to the Registrar of Companies on 22.4.05. But no evidence adduced by him to show that he was not connected with the activities of the company. 10. The respondents-4 and 5 produced two documents and marked as Exts. R1 and R2. The 4th respondent is examined as RW1 and admitted that at the time of joining in the kuri by the complainant he was one of the directors. He stated that on 18.4.05 he had retired from the directorship of the company. He has produced a certified copy of Form No.32 and which would show about the joining of and changes among directors. Ext. R1 shows that the respondents-2 to 8 were resigned from the directorship by transferring shares on 18.4.05. Ext. P1 would show that the complainant had remitted the first instalment towards the kuri on 5.4.2002. After 3 years these persons retired from the directorship as per Ext. R1. As per Ext. P1 the last instalment was made on 4.7.05. So only 3 instalments were there after the retirement of respondents. According to the complainant these persons were the directors at the time of his transactions with the company. It is true that these persons were resigned from the directorship on 18.4.05 as per Ext. R1. But it may not aware of the subscribers and during cross examination RW1 stated that they have not published the resignation in newspapers. It was their duty to convince the resignation with the subscribers and the complainant was and is under the belief that these respondents were the directors of the company. So these respondents are responsible to return the amount claimed. 10. In the result, the complaint is allowed and the respondents are directed to return the Ext. P1 amount with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of last payment till realization with costs Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand only) within two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, this the 14th day of July 2010.
| | [HONORABLE Rajani P.S.] Member[HONORABLE Padmini Sudheesh] PRESIDENT[HONORABLE Sasidharan M.S] Member | | 
