IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL  COMMISSION, KOLLAM

Dated this the  5^th   Day of  January   2023

  Present: -  Smt.S.Sandhya Rani, Bsc, L.L.B,President(I/C)

                   Sri.Stanly Harold, B.A.LLB, Member

                                                CC.304/2020

Leelamma.T.Panicker                                         :       Complainant

Kallarakkal Thadathivila House

Kundara East P.O, Mulavana

Kollam.

[By Adv.P.Sajeev Babu]

V/s

1. Vakayar Lab LLP                                         :         Opposite parties

         Door No.XIII/526 Popular Tower Annexure

         Vakayar P.O, Pathanamthitta.

         Pathanamthitta KL-689698 IN

         Represented by its Designated Partner

        Prabha Thomas.

2. Y.Mathew Panicker

        Former Branch Manager

        of Popular Dealers

        Kundara,Residing at,

      Maliyekkal Mathew Bhavan,

       Punnamukku, Perumpuzha P.O.

3. T.Mathunni Panicker

         Branch Manager

        Popular Dealers

        Kundara

        Residing at Plavila Thekkathil

        Raju Nivas, Ambipoika.

FINAL    ORDER

S.SANDHYA RANI, B Sc, LLB, PRESIDENT(I/C)

This is a case based on a complaint filed by the complainant against Vakayar Lab LLP, its former and present branch managers of Kundara branch, claiming return of Fixed Deposit of Rs.1,10,000/- with interest, compensation and costs of the proceedings.  The opposite parties No.2&3 set exparte and notice to 1^st opposite party returned un served on 05.01.2023 and the counsel for the complainant submitted that the complainant is not interested to proceed with the complaint.

In the circumstances it is clear that the complainant is not intending to file any proof affidavit. The documents produced along with the complaint is only an attested photocopy of certificate of contribution to LLP.  The said photocopy is not admissible in view of Section 114(1) of the Indian Evidence Act.  Moreover here the documents produced is not a Fixed Deposit receipt but it is unattested photocopy of contribution to LLP.  Even if  it is proved that the complainant has contributed Rs.1,10,000/- it was not fixed deposit, but it is a contribution to the partnership firm by which the complainant would become one of the partners of the limited liabilities firm.  A partner is not expected to file a complaint against partnership firm or its managing partner or any other partner since the complainant would become owner of the partnership firm by virtue of making contribution to LLP firm.  In short the complainant would not come within the purview of consumer.  Therefore the complaint filed u/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 is not maintainable either in law or on facts.

In the result complaint stands dismissed being not maintainable either in law or on facts.

          No costs.

Dated this the    5^th   day of   January   2023.

S.Sandhya Rani:Sd/-

            Stanly Harold:Sd/-

           Forwarded/by Order

           Senior Superintendent