By  Smt. Sheena V.V., Member :

          The case of the complainant is that the complainant was subscriber of the 10^th day quarterly kuri as per statement No.54 in Janapriya Kuries Pvt. Ltd. Complainant auctioned the kuri on 10/05/2003, as per the request of the complainant, Director Board of 1^st opposite party company sanctioned kuri amount and complainant furnished his own property extent of 4.500 cents in Sy. No.32/6 in Manakody village Desom, Thrissur taluk, District as kuri security. Complainant furnished the original document, back documents, tax receipt, possession certificate, location certificate, encumbrance certificate etc. for legal scrutiny. After that, the opposite parties informed the complainant that, company was in the financial crisis and at this stage company can’t give the amount, and undertook that company is ready to pay the balance kuri subscription from the interest of kuri auctioned amount and all property documents returned back to the complainant. Opposite parties assumed that company will pay entire amount, it is Rs.1,00,000/- after termination of kuri on 10/05/2010. But even if the kuri terminated, the amount did not pay to the complainant. On 01/03/2012 lawyer notice sent but no reply and no payment. Hence the complaint filed to realize Rs.1,00,000/- and 12% interest with cost and compensation.

          2) On receiving the notice of the complaint, 1^st opposite party and 10 were continuously absent and so set ex-parte. Notice of 6^th opposite party was returned stating that expired. So the complainant filed memo stating that no relief against 6^th opposite party. Other opposite parties, 2^nd to 5 and 7to 9, appeared before the Forum and filed their version. In the version of 2^nd opposite party, he totally denied the allegation of complaint. He stated that he was not a director of 1^st opposite party company. So, he is not liable to compensate to the complainant. Hence, the complaint against 2^nd opposite party dismiss. In the version of 3^rd, 4^th, 5^th, 8^th and 9^th opposite parties, they stated that, the complainant was a defaulter of kuri by without paying the kuri amount after auctioned the kuri. He had not furnished sufficient security for auctioned kuri amount. From 23^rd installment onwards, he was not paid any amount to the kuri. So, these opposite parties are not liable to compensate the alleged amount. 7^th opposite party also filed his version stating that he is not liable to pay any amount to the complainant. 7^th opposite party has no connection at all with the day to day affairs of the 1^st opposite party company. Even though 7^th opposite party was a share holder in the 1^st opposite party company with limited liability, her share have been transferred with effect from 16/11/2000 and thereafter 7^th opposite party has no connection at all with the 1^st opposite party company at any time. So there is no liability to compensate. Hence dismiss this complaint.

          3) Points to be considered that

                   a) whether the opposite parties had committed deficiency in service

                       or not ?

                   b) if so what reliefs and costs.

          4) When the case is posted for evidence, the complainant filed proof affidavit and 4 documents produced, which are marked as Ext. P1 to P4. Ext. P1 is the kuri pass book; Ext. P2 is the lawyer notice; Ext. P3 is the postal receipts and Ext. P4 is the postal acknowledgement card. There is no contra evidence adduced by opposite parties.

          5) We have gone through the affidavit and documents of complainant and version of opposite parties. Ext. P1 is the crucial document, which shows the subscription of kuri. From Ext. P1 kuri pass book, we could find that the complainant was auctioned that kuri. The complainant was paid the kuri installment up to 22^nd installments. From 23^rd installments we could not find the remittance of kuri amount in kuri pass book. In such a situation he is only eligible to get paid amount. There is no case to the opposite parties that they were returned the amount to the complainant. So, we could find the deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties by without paying the kuri amount to the complainant. However, the 1^st opposite party company is a private limited company. So the directors’ liability is limited. Hence the 1^st opposite party company must compensate to the complainant.

          6) In the result, the complaint is allowed and 1^st opposite party company is directed to return Rs.55,000/- (Rupees Fifty five thousand only) to the complainant with 12% interest from the date of filing of the complaint till realization and cost Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three thousand only) to the complainant 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 31^st day of July 2017.