Order by:

Sh.Amrinder Singh Sidhu,  President.

1.       The  complainant  has filed the instant complaint under section 12 of  the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (as amended upto date) on the allegations that Opposite Party No.1 is a finance company and engaged in the business of finance and also getting deposits from the persons on interest and others and Opposite Parties No. 2 to 5 are its partners and all the partners are jointly and severally liable for all the acts ad conduct o Opposite Party No.1 firm and all are liable to refund the amount due towards their customers including the complainant. Further alleges that the complainant on the invitation of Opposite Parties deposited Rs.40,000/- on 01.01.2010 with Opposite Parties who issued pass book bearing account No. 310 and made entry of said amount in the pass book. Thereafter, the complainant deposited more amounts from time to time with the Opposite Parties as reflected in the pass book and the entries in the passbook have been made by one of the partner or authorised official of Opposite Party No.1. The Opposite Parties have been making the periodical payment of interest to the complainant and making relevant entries in the pass book duly signed by them and  last payment of interest of Rs.2250/- have been made by the Opposite Parties on 01.10.2016 and thereafter, despite repeated requests and demands by the complainant, the Opposite Parties failed to pay any amount and ultimately, the Opposite Parties refused to refund the entire amount alongwith interest therein. After that in the month of November, 2016 when the complainant demanded the amount alongwith interest from the partners of the Opposite Party No.1, they assured to make the total payment  of the complainant alongwith interest after one or two months, but never returned the amount to the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant has come to know that all the partners of Opposite Party No.1 has decided to wind up their business and planning to leave India after defrauding their creditors including the complainant and said partners in collusion with one another has also got filed one civil suit by Atamjit Singh against other Opposite Parties and their creditors and in said civil suit also the Opposite Parties have even in writing acknowledged their liability to pay the due amount to its creditors including the complainant. Thereafter, inspite of repeated requests, demands and representations the Opposite Parties did not return the amount of the principle amount or interest thereon so far to the complainant and hence, there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties and due to this, the complainant is suffering from mental, harassment and economic problems. Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs.

a)       To direct the Opposite Parties to release  the amount of the complainant amounting to Rs.1.50 lakhs which includes principal amount and settled agreed amount of interest after deducting the interest paid to the complainant alongwth future interest @ 12% per annum from 01.10.2016 till its  payment and also to pay Rs.One lakh on account of mental tension, agony and physical harassment or any other relief to which this District Consumer Commission may deem fit be granted.

Hence, the present complaint.

2.       On notice,  Opposite Party No.1- firm refused to received the summons, whereas Opposite Party No.3 and 5 reportedly gone to Canada and Opposite Parties No.2 and 4 served and hence, Opposite Party No.1 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 15.02.2019.    

3.       Opposite Parties No.2 and 4 appeared through counsel and contested the complaint   by filing the written version taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint; that the complainant has concealed the true and material fats from this District Consumer Commission. The firm Grewal Brar Finance Company has been dissolved and Opposite Parties No.2 and 4 have no concern whatsoever with the said firm. Moreover, the complainant has already received Rs.1,50,000/- vide receipt dated 04.05.2016 and the answering Opposite Party has filed a civil suit for defamation against the complainant and same is pending in the Civil Courts, Moga and due to this reason, the complainant has filed the present complaint against the answering Opposite Parties just to pressurize and harass the answering Opposite Parties.  On merits, the answering Opposite Parties took up the same and similar pleas as taken up by them in the preliminary objections and hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of  Opposite Parties No.2 and 4.

4.       In order to prove her case, the complainant has tendered into evidence her  duly sworn affidavit Ex.C1, copy of passbook Ex.C2, certified copy of plaint Ex.C3, copy of agreement Ex.C4, copy of statement of account Ex.C5 and closed her evidence.

5.       On the other hand, to rebut the evidence of the complainant, despite availing sufficient opportunities, the Opposite Parties No.2 and 4 failed to tender any evidence in support of their defence, so the evidence of the Opposite Parties No.2 and 4 is closed by order dated 29.11.2021. 

6.       We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties,  and also gone through the documents placed on record.

7.       Ld.counsel for the complainant has reiterated the averments as narrated in the complaint and contended that Opposite Party No.1 is a finance company and engaged in the business of finance and also getting deposits from the persons on interest and others and Opposite Parties No. 2 to 5 are its partners and all the partners are jointly and severally liable for all the acts ad conduct o Opposite Party No.1 firm and all are liable to refund the amount due towards their customers including the complainant. Further alleges that the complainant on the invitation of Opposite Parties deposited Rs.40,000/- on 01.01.2010 with Opposite Parties who issued pass book bearing account No. 310 and made entry of said amount in the pass book. Thereafter, the complainant deposited more amounts from time to time with the Opposite Parties as reflected in the pass book and the entries in the passbook have been made by one of the partner or authorised official of Opposite Party No.1. The Opposite Parties have been making the periodical payment of interest to the complainant and making relevant entries in the pass book duly signed by them and  last payment of interest of Rs.2250/- have been made by the Opposite Parties on 01.10.2016 and thereafter, despite repeated requests and demands by the complainant, the Opposite Parties failed to pay any amount and ultimately, the Opposite Parties refused to refund the entire amount alongwith interest therein. After that in the month of November, 2016 when the complainant demanded the amount alongwith interest from the partners of the Opposite Party No.1, they assured to make the total payment  of the complainant alongwith interest after one or two months, but never returned the amount to the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant has come to know that all the partners of Opposite Party No.1 has decided to wind up their business and planning to leave India after defrauding their creditors including the complainant and said partners in collusion with one another has also got filed one civil suit by Atamjit Singh against other Opposite Parties and their creditors and in said civil suit also the Opposite Parties have even in writing acknowledged their liability to pay the due amount to its creditors including the complainant. Thereafter, inspite of repeated requests, demands and representations the Opposite Parties did not return the amount of the principle amount or interest thereon so far to the complainant and hence, there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties. To support her contention, the complainant has filed her  duly sworn affidavit Ex.C1, copy of passbook Ex.C2, certified copy of plaint Ex.C3, copy of agreement Ex.C4, copy of statement of account Ex.C5.  In the statement of accounts Ex.C5, the Opposite Parties have admitted the liability of the complainant and has nowhere denied by filing any cogent and convincing document.  Moreover, on the other hand, the Opposite Parties No.2 and 4 have not taken any specific plea to defend their case with any specific affidavit or averments, because despite availing sufficient opportunities, the Opposite Parties failed to tender any document to defend their case. The only pleas taken by the answering Opposite Parties is that the firm Grewal Brar Finance Company has been dissolved and Opposite Parties No.2 and 4 have no concern whatsoever with the said firm. Moreover, the complainant has already received Rs.1,50,000/- vide receipt dated 04.05.2016 and the answering Opposite Party has filed a civil suit for defamation against the complainant. But we do not agree with the aforesaid contention of the Opposite Parties No.2 and 4. The complainant has specifically  contended that she never took any such amount of Rs.1,50,000/- as stated by the Opposite Parties against the voucher dated 04.05.2016 as it forged, because the complainant never signed in Punjabi Language and he always signed in English Language. Moreover, as per the Income Tax Act rules and law, the amount more than Rs.20,000/- is to be paid through cheque and not by cash, hence we do not agree with the aforesaid contention of the Opposite Parties.  Moreover, this  fact has nowhere rebutted by the Opposite Parties in their written reply or by filing any affidavit in rebuttal. So, being the finance company, the Opposite Parties are joint or severally bound to pay the amount alongwith interest, but they have failed to pay the same. So, we found deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties jointly and severally, because the partnership firm can sue or be sued through one of the partner  as  the active partner who is looking day to day affairs of the firm and is directly dealing with its customers. It is immaterial if the other partners have not come to this District Consumer Commission to defend their case.

8.       Now, it is admitted case that opposite party no.1 firm is dealing in finance business and opposite party no.2 was its partner. It is further admitted that the complainant is dealing with opposite party firm and deposited his amount with the firm and this amount is still due towards the firm. On it, the plea of the opposite party no.2 is that said firm was dissolved on 6.5.2016  as per agreement Ex.C4, and he retired from the firm and all the liabilities of the firm were distributed among the partners of the firm and the debt of the complainant falls in the share of Sukhmandar Singh partner and Sukhmandar Singh is liable for the amount of the complainant. As per Partnership Act, each and every partner is jointly and severally liable for the act of the firm and for dues of the firm, which was done in the period, when he was partner of the firm. Even party can claim and recover the entire amount due towards the firm from a single partner. As per section 25 of the Indian Partnership Acts of the firm "every partner is liable, jointly with all the other partners and also severally, for all acts of the firm done while he is a partner. The plea of opposite party no.2 is that he retired from the firm and he is not liable for the act of the firm as per section 32 (2) of Indian Partnership Act "A retiring partner may be discharged from any liability to any third party for acts of the firm done before his retirement by an agreement made by him with such third party and the partners of the reconstituted firm, as such agreement may be implied by a course of dealing between such third party and the reconstituted firm after he had knowledge of the retirement. But in the present case there is no such agreement between the complainant and opposite party no.2 and other partners of the firm to this effect. As per section 45 of Indian Partnership Act Liability for acts of partners after dissolution "Notwithstanding the dissolution of a firm, the partners continue to be liable as such to third parties for any act done by any of them which would have been an act of the firm if done before the dissolution, until public notice is given of the dissolution. As per the version of opposite party no.2 the firm was dissolved on 6.5.2016, whereas the amount due towards the complainant is prior to 06.05.2016 and opposite party no.2 is liable for this amount being partner of the firm. Dissolution of the firm or settlement regarding the liability of the firm among the partners has no adverse effect on the rights of complainant and the partners cannot escape from the liability of the firm. The complainant has each and every right to claim this amount from the firm and its partners, jointly and severally and dissolution of the firm or settlement among the partners has no adverse effect on the rights of the complainant.

9.                It is generally seen that the private finance companies get deposits from innocent  and helpless persons who used to deposit in greed of higher rate of interest, but they refuse to return the same on maturity/ demand. 

10.              With regard to the plea of the jurisdiction of this District Consumer Commission  to entertain such complaints, we have perused the reply filed by the answering Opposite Parties.  In section 2.19-11 under the head ‘Financial Service’ of ‘the Consumer Protection Act, 1986’ (as amended upto date), it has been held to the following effect:-

State Financial Corporations have been constituted as body corporate under the Financial Corporation Act with the object of rendering financial assistance to deserving applicants for establishment of industries. Financial assistance rendered by the Financial Corporation is a service for which the borrower pays interest. Thus, within the broad meaning of consumer and service, such service is for hire. Any deficiency in service comes within the scope of the Consumer Protection Act. A failure to refund the amount deposited with any financial institution on maturity amounts to deficiency in service.

11.              The Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi in the case of Smt. Kalawati & Ors. Vs. United Vaish Cooperative Thrift & Credit Society Ltd. [I (2002) CPJ 71 (NC)] while discussing the provisions of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, 1972 in a consumer case of deposits from the public has held that “where a Company or a firm invites deposits from the public for the purpose of using money for its business on promise of giving attractive rates of interest with security of investment and prompt repayment of the principal after the stipulated term the transaction of such a nature would clearly make the depositor a ‘consumer’ under CPA. Moreover in Consumer Forums, the justice can be delivered without any procedural wrangles and hyper technicalities”. .  

12.               In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the complaint filed by the complainant has merit and the same is accepted. Opposite Parties are directed to pay the amount of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees one lakh fifty thousands only) as per the entry reflected in the pass book Ex.C2 alongwith interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 20.08.2018  till its final payment.  All the Opposite Parties are also jointly or severally directed to pay the lump sum compensation to the complainant to the tune of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousands only) on account of harassment, mental tension  and litigation expenses. The compliance of this order be made by Opposite Parties  within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant  shall be at liberty to get the order enforced through the indulgence of this District Commission. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to record room after compliance.

13.     Reason for delay in deciding the complaint.

This complaint could not be decided within the prescribed period because the government has not appointed any of the Whole Time Members in this Commission for about 3 years i.e. w.e.f. 15.09.2018 till 27.08.2021 as well as due to pandemic of COVID-19.

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated: 07.12.2021.