Kerala

Trissur

CC/07/857

K.L.Thomas - Complainant(s)

Versus

Janapriya Kuries And Loans Pvt.Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Adv.Pratheesh.p.Varghese

04 Feb 2011

ORDER

 
Complaint Case No. CC/07/857
 
1. K.L.Thomas
Kolllannoor House,Chettupuzha
Trissur
Kerala
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. Janapriya Kuries And Loans Pvt.Ltd
Kunnathangadi,Veluthoor Rep by Mg.Director C.L.Vareeth,Chalissery House,Veluthoor
Trissur
Kerala
2. P.V.Chakkappan
Pavarttykkaran House,Manakkodi
Trissur
Kerala
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HONORABLE Padmini Sudheesh PRESIDENT
 HONORABLE Rajani P.S. Member
 HONORABLE Sasidharan M.S Member
 
PRESENT:Adv.Pratheesh.p.Varghese , Advocate for the Complainant 1
 
ORDER

 

 
By Sri. M.S. Sasidharan, Member:
 
            The complainant’s case is that the complainant joined in the 10th day kuri conducted by the respondents vide statement No.14. He remitted the first instalment amount Rs.2500/- on 10.12.98 and has remitted 32 instalments without any default. When he approached the respondent’s firm on 10.2.06 to remit the 33rd instalment he could not remit the instalment as the firm was lying closed. The respondents told him that they were closing the transactions and promised to return the amount soon. But the respondents did not return the amount. So a lawyer notice was issued on 7.8.07. But no reply was received from the 1st respondent and the reply furnished by the 2nd respondent was false. The complainant is liable to get back Rs.80,000/- remitted in 32 instalments. Hence the complaint.
 
          2. The 1st respondent called absent and set exparte.
 
          3. The counter filed by the 2nd respondent is that the complainant did not enter into any contract with the 2nd respondent for hiring any service for consideration. The complainant has impleaded the 2nd respondent without any cause of action. The 2nd respondent denies to have any knowledge regarding the transaction mentioned in the complaint. The 2nd respondent has retired from the partnership of the firm on 27.9.04 and he is not responsible for any of the actions of the firm from that date onwards and the 2nd respondent cannot be held liable for the actions of the firm taken after the said date. The 2nd respondent has never been in charge or responsible to the firm for the conduct of business of the firm. He was simply a sleeping partner and he was never required to take part in the business of the firm. Hence dismiss the complaint.
 
          4. The points for consideration are:
              (1) Is the complainant entitled to get back the amount remitted 
                    as per Ext. P1 passbook?
              (2) Other reliefs and costs.
 
          5. The evidence consists of Exts. P1 to P3 and Exts. R1 and R2. No oral evidence has been adduced by the complainant and the respondents.

          6. Points: The complainant’s case is that he joined in the 10th day kuri conducted by the respondents vide statement No.14. He has remitted 32 instalments at the rate of Rs.2500/- each without any default. He could not remit the further instalments as the respondent firm was lying closed and the respondent told him that they were closing the transactions. They assured him to return the amount soon. But no amount was returned. He has remitted Rs.80,000/- in 32 instalments and is entitled to get back the amount with interest. The main objections raised by the 2nd respondent in his counter are that the complainant did not enter into any contract with him to hire any service for consideration. He had no knowledge regarding the transaction mentioned in the complaint. The 2nd respondent has retired from the partnership of the firm on 27.9.04 and he is not responsible for any of the actions of the firm from that date onwards. He has never been in charge or responsible to the firm for the conduct of business of the firm. He was only simply a sleeping partner. Ext. P1 is the passbook issued by the respondent firm in the name of the complainant. The remittance of 32 instalments are entered in it. Even though the 2nd respondent has stated that he was not in charge or responsible for any of the business transactions of the firm he admitted himself that he was a sleeping partner of the respondent firm. The complainant has remitted the first instalment on 9.9.98 and he had already remitted 27 instalments as per Ext. P1 before the date on which the 2nd respondent said to be retired from the firm. More over Ext. R2 is not enough to substantiate his claim that he retired from the partnership of the firm on 29.7.04. Hence the 2nd respondent cannot be exonerated from the liabilities to the complainant. The respondents are liable to give back Rs.80,000/- the amount remitted in 32 instalments by the complainant.
 
          6. In the result the complaint is allowed and the respondents are directed to pay the complainant Ext. P1 passbook amount with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 10.2.06 till realization and Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand only) as costs within two months 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 4th day of February 2011.
 
 
[HONORABLE Padmini Sudheesh]
PRESIDENT
 
[HONORABLE Rajani P.S.]
Member
 
[HONORABLE Sasidharan M.S]
Member

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.