Complainant : Girija Varma, Karathothil House, ‘Surabhi’,
P.O.Veluthur, Thrissur.
(ByAdv.M.A.Chakrapani, Thrissur)
Respondents : 1. Janapriya Kuries & Loans (P) Ltd., Kunnathangadi,
P.O.Veluthur,Thrissur rep. by Managing Director,
P.V.Chakkappan, PavartikaranHouse, P.O.Manakodi,
Thrissur.
2. Adv.Varghese Chirayath, P.O.Ayyanghole, Thrissur,
Chairman, Janapriya Kuries & Loans (P) Ltd.,
Kunnathangadi, P.O.Veluthur.
3. P.V.Chakkappan, PavartikaranHouse, P.O.Manakodi,
Thrissur, Managing Director, Janapriya Kuries &
Loans (P) Ltd., Kunnathangadi, P.O.Veluthur.
4. Paul P Allesh, PavartikaranHouse, P.O.Manakodi,
Thrissur, Director, Janapriya Kuries &
Loans (P) Ltd., Kunnathangadi, P.O.Veluthur.
5. C.L.Vareedu, Chalissery House, P.O.Veluthur,
Thrissur, Director, Janapriya Kuries & Loans (P) Ltd.,
Kunnathangadi, P.O.Veluthur.
6. K.Gopinath, Kunnathery House, P.O.Arimbur,
Thrissur, Director, Janapriya Kuries & Loans (P) Ltd.,
Kunnathangadi, P.O.Veluthur.
7. A.Sreedharan Nair, Alappat House, P.O.Arimbur,
Director, Janapriya Kuries & Loans (P) Ltd.,
Kunnathangadi, P.O.Veluthur.
8. K.Premalatha, Kottarath House, P.O.Ayyanthole,
Director, Janapriya Kuries & Loans (P) Ltd.,
Kunnathangadi, P.O.Veluthur.
(By Adv.K.N.Somakumar, Thrissur for R8)
9. P.D.Rappai, PorathukaranHuse, P.O.Chettupuzha,
Director, Janapriya Kuries & Loans (P) Ltd.,
Kunnathangadi, P.O.Veluthur.
10. B.I.Ouseph, Brahmakulam House, P.O.Eravu,
Thrissur, Director, Janapriya Kuries & Loans (P)
Ltd., Kunnathangadi, P.O.Veluthur.
(By Adv.E.D.Francis, Thrissur for R2,R3,R5,R9&R10)
11. M.K.Raphel, Maroky House, P.O.Veluthur, Thrissur,
Director, Janapriya Kuries & Loans (P) Ltd.,
Kunnathangadi, P.O.Veluthur.
O R D E R
By Smt.Rajani.P.S,, Member
The complainant’s case is as follows: The complainant had subscribed a 10th day quarterly kuri vide statement No.46 conducted by the 1st respondent firm. The said kuri was started on 10/2/1998 and terminates on 10/5/10. The said kuri is having Rs.2,500/- in each instalment. The complainant had paid 32nd instalment on 2/11/05 and when she went to pay for the 33rd instalment on 10/2/06 the 1st respondent firm was seen closed. After that at several times it was seen closed. Subsequently she met the 3rd respondent who was the Managing Director of the respondent firm and he told that the respondent firm is in financial crisis and he assured to return her kuri amount with 18% interest on 25/10/07. But on that day when she approached the 3rd respondent, he avoided her by saying one or other reasons and not returned her kuri amount. She is entitled to get the paid kuri amount of Rs.80,000/- with 18% interest and also to get compensation. The non-return of the paid kuri amount shows deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. A lawyer notice dated 15/10/08 was sent. The respondents accepted the notice. But not returned the amount so far. Hence complaint.
2. The counter filed by respondents 1,5 and 10 : The 5th respondent is the present Managing Director of the respondent firm and this counter is filed on behalf of the 1st respondent firm also. So the 2nd respondent is not the Managing Director of the firm now. 3rd respondent is not the Chairman. The case not stand against the 2nd respondent and will stand only against the respondent firm. The complainant had paid only Rs.44,000/- towards the kuri and after that no payment. So as per the kuri viampu she is entitled to get the kuri amount by deducting foreman commission and without interest. But the complainant had compromised the matter with the respondent on an understanding that the respondent company has to pay Rs.45,000/- without deducting foreman commission and as per the agreement of the complainant the respondent had given Rs.30,000/- to the complainant and only Rs.15,000/- has to pay for the balance amount. The respondent firm is ready to pay Rs.15,000/-. The complainant is not entitled for the reliefs sought in the complaint and she has to prove it. Hence dismiss.
3. The counter of 2nd and 3rd respondents : The 2nd respondent is not the present Managing Director and 3rd respondent is not the present Chairman of 1st respondent. The complaint was filed against this respondents as Managing Director and Chairman respectively on the basis of the information given in the pass book at the time of joining the kuri. The present Chairman is the 5th respondent i.e. Mr.C.L.Vareeth and the Chairman Mr.Shahulhameed is died. Hence the complaint is to be amended as per this. These respondents are not able to tell about the kuri amount and the present Managing Director can tell about it. So these respondents are unnecessary parties and should avoid them from the case. Hence dismiss as this respondents are not liable to pay any amount.
4. Counter filed by 8th respondent: The complainant is not entitled to get any relief sought in the complaint. This respondent has not accepted any amount from the complainant and the allegations that this respondent contacted the complainant are also incorrect and false. This respondent is not liable to pay any amount to the complainant. This respondent has not persuaded the complainant to subscribe any chit. No notice has been served upon this respondent at any time. This respondent has no connection at all with the day to day affairs of the 1st respondent company as alleged in the complaint. Even though this respondent was a share in the 1st respondent company, her shares have been transferred with effect from 16/11/2000 and thereafter this respondent has no connection at all with the 1st respondent company. This respondent has not participated in any of the business activities of the 1st respondent firm. For any of the dealings of the 1st respondent after 16/11/2000 this respondent is not liable at all. This respondent is an unnecessary party in the above proceedings. The complainant is well aware that this respondent is not a shareholder of the 1st respondent company after 16/11/2000. This respondent is not liable to pay any amount or cost to the complainant. For filing unnecessary and frivolous petitions against this respondent, he may be directed to pay the cost to this respondent. Hence dismiss the complaint with costs.
5. 4th , 7th and 9th respondents remained exparte. 6th and 11th respondents expired and statement was filed stating no relief sought against them.
6. Points for consideration are :
1) Was there any deficiency in service on the part of the respondents ?
2) If so reliefs and costs ?
7. The evidence consists of Exhibits P1 to P4. The complainant filed proof affidavit but not cross examined.
8. It is the case of the complainant that she is a subscriber of the 10th day quarterly kuri conducted by the respondents. She joined the kuri on 10/2/1998 and it terminates on 10/5/10. She paid trimonthlyRs.2,500/- as instalment amount. She paid regularly for 32 instalment and after that she could not continue the kuri as the firm was seen closed. She made several attempt to pay the further instalments. But she was unable to pay the kuri instalments as the firm was not functioning. She approached the 3rd respondent and he assured to return the kuri amount with 18% interest on 25/10/07. But not returned so far.
9. The respondents 1,5 and 10 in their counter stated that Rs.30,000/- was returned to the complainant and she is entitled only to get the balance amount of Rs.15,000/-. But there is no document produced by them to prove the same. So these allegation raised by them is found baseless. The respondents 2 and 3 was the Managing Director and Chairman at the time of joining the kuri and these respondents in their counter stated that they are not the present Managing Director and Chairman. The respondents 1,5 and 10 in their counter stated that 5th respondent is the present Managing Director and he is representing the respondent firm also. 8th respondent in her counter admitted that she was a share holder in the 1st respondent company, but as transferred her shares with effect from 16/11/2000 and so she has no connection at all with the 1st respondent firm. But no document is produced by any of the respondents to prove their statements in the counter.
10. As per Exhibit P1 it can be seen that all the respondents in the party array were included in the board of directors at the time of kuri transaction. So all the respondents except 6 and 11 are responsible to return the Exhibit P1 kuri amount. The complainant could not continue the kuri due to the non-functioning of the respondent firm. There is no counter evidence. So the respondents have committed deficiency in service. The complainant is entitled to get the Exhibit P1 kuri amount after maturity. Exhibit P1 shows that the said kuri matured on 10/5/10. So she is entitled to get the Exhibit P1 kuri amount of Rs.80,000/- with interest from the date of maturity.
11. In the result the complaint is allowed and the respondents except 6 and 11 are directed to pay Rs.80,000/-(Rupees Eighty thousand only) with 12% interest from 10/5/10 till realization and also to pay Rs.500/- as costs within one month from the date of receipt of copy of order.
Dictated to the Confdl. Asst., transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum this the 22nd day of November 2011.
Sd/-
Rajani.P.S., Member
Sd/- Padmini Sudheesh, President
Sd/-
M.S.Sasidharan, Member
Appendix
Complainant’s Exhibits
Ext. P1 Pass book
Ext. P2 Copy of lawyer notice
Ext. P3 Postal receipt
Ext. P4 Postal acknowledgement
Id/-
Member
