By Smt. Padmini Sudheesh, President: The case of the complainant is that: on 30.9.96 the complainant had deposited Rs.10,000/- as per R.No.85, LF 43 in the mega deposit scheme conducted by the Ist respondent firm and the other respondents are partners. The maturity date was 30.9.2001 and the maturity value will be Rs.20,000/-. The respondent had not returned the deposited amount even after maturity date and hence there is deficiency in service. The complainant sent a lawyer notice but no remedy. Hence the complaint. 2. The first respondent called absent and set exparte. 3. The 2nd respondent expired and the legal heirs are already in the party array. 4. The counter filed by respondents-3, 4 and 5 is that these respondents are not the partners of first respondent firm. The firm having reg.No.4378/94 is a proprietary concern and the complainant had dealings with the first respondent firm and not with these respondents. These respondents have no relationship with the first respondent firm. These respondents have no information about the proprietorship firm run by Late Janardhanan. These respondents never accepted any amount from the complainant. These respondents are not liable to pay the amount if any given to the 2nd respondent. There is no unfair trade practice on the part of these respondents. Hence dismiss. 5. The points for consideration are: (1) Is there any deficiency in service on the part of respondents? (2) If so, reliefs and costs? 6. The evidence consists of Exts. P1 and P2 and Exts. R1 to R3. No oral evidence adduced by both. 7. Points: The complaint is filed to get back the deposited amount after maturity which was deposited with the respondents firm. According to the complainant he had deposited Rs.10,000/- on 30.9.1996 with the respondents finance and it was attained maturity on 30.9.2001 and the maturity value comes Rs.20,000/-. The amount did not receive by the complainant. Exhibits P1 and P2 are the documents produced by complainant and Exhibit P1 the deposit receipt would show that the complainant had deposited Rs.10,000/- on 30/9/96 with the Enjoy Finance for a maturity value of Rs.20,000/-. As per Exhibit P1 the due date was on 30/9/01. The amount was not returned and the complainant was caused to send Exhibit P2 lawyer notice. In spite of this the amount is not returned. R1 the 1st respondent remains exparte and 2nd respondent was died. 8. The remaining respondents filed their counter by contending that these respondents are not partners of 1st respondent firm. The firm having Registration No.4378R94 is a proprietor ship firm and the complainant had transaction with this firm. These respondents have no connection with the firm conducted by late Janardhanan. These respondents have no liability to clear off the liabilities if any of late Janardhanan. The respondents filed Exhibits R1 to R3 to substantiate their case. Exhibit R3 is the copy of letter issued by Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes and it is stated in Exhibit R3 that it is not a partnership firm and Mr.Janardhanan is a proprietor and a licensee of the firm. But the name of firm is not mentioned in Exhibit R3. It cannot be believed. But it is true that the respondents 4 and 5 are the children of late Janardhanan and 3rd respondent is the wife of late Janardhanan, the 2nd respondent. So they are liable to return the amount. If it is not a partnership firm as stated by the respondents definitely the respondents 3 to 5 will be liable for the complainant. The second respondent who was the sole proprietor according to respondents 3 to 5 and after his death the entire properties and liabilities normally will go to these respondents. The respondents 3 to 5 have no case that they have not acquired any property of second respondent and have not taken any liability. Since these persons are legal heirs there would be every chance of owning the property of late Janardhanan the 1st respondent. So these peoples are liable to return the amount to the complainant. 8.In the result, the complaint is allowed and the respondents-3 to 5 are directed to return Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from 30.9.2001 till realization with costs Rs.750/- (Rupees seven hundred and fifty only) within one month 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 19th day of March 2010.
| | [HONORABLE Rajani P.S.] Member[HONORABLE Padmini Sudheesh] PRESIDENT[HONORABLE Sasidharan M.S] Member | | 
