By Smt Padmini Sudheesh, President <br /> <br /> The case of the petitioner is that the son of petitioner, Mr.Unnikrishnan has joined in a Kuri which was conducted by the respondents under the name Lakshmi Chits and Finance. The Kuri had started on 6/3/00 and the total instalment was 30 and the amount of each instalment was Rs.2,000/- only. The Kuri had transferred in the name of complainant and she had paid the entire instalments as per pass book No.23. The Kuri amount which is to be obtained to the petitioner after the commission is Rs.55,800/- only. This amount so far not returned. There is deficiency of service on the part of respondents. Hence this complaint.<br /> <br /> 2. The Counter of respondent 2 is that, this respondent has no connection with the 1st respondent company. This respondent has no connection with the said Unnikrishnan. There was a partnership firm viz., ‘Lakshmi Enterprises’ and this respondent was the Managing Partner and respondent 3 and one Anandan was other partners. The firm was started on 11/1994. On 7/8/96 this respondent has retired from the firm. After his retirement other partners were continued the business. Subsequently the 2nd respondent was in enemical terms with the respondent and colluded with the complainant and this complaint was filed. The complaint is not true. There is a case OS 10/03 pending before the Munsiff Court, Chavakkad against the respondents, which was filed by the wife of Unnikrishnan after colluding with the second opposite party. He has filed additional Counter affirming this version. Hence dismiss the complaint.<br /> 3. The Counter of respondents 3 and 4 is as follows:<br /> These respondents are not at all having any relationship with the Kuri Company known as ‘Lakshmi Chits and Finance’. Respondent 3 is a total stranger and may be exonerated from the liability. It is also stated by 3rd respondent that the deed of Lakshmi Enterprises will closely reveal the facts. The 2nd respondent was managing the affairs of Lakshmi Enterprises, hence he is liable for mismanagement and mal-functioning of the firm. The deceased Unnikrishnan is not the son of Complainant. The pass book is scored and produced in the name of the complainant, for no counter signature is seen and no explanation is also given in the pass book regarding the change of name. This respondent has not given his consent in changing the name of subscriber. Respondent 2 is liable for the petitioner. Hence dismiss against the respondents.<br /> <br /> 4. The issues are<br /> 1) Whether the petitioner is entitled to get the amount sought?<br /> 2) Whether the petitioner is entitled for the compensation as claimed ?<br /> 3) Other reliefs and costs ?<br /> <br /> 5. The evidence consists of Exhibits P1 and Exhibits R1 and R2. No other evidence.<br /> <br /> 6. Point No.1 The complainant is the mother of deceased Unnikrishnan. He was the person who has joined the Kuri in Lakshmi Chits and Finance. After his death it was transferred in the name of complainant. All the respondents totally denied the case of petitioner. According to them there was no such firm as ‘Lakshmi Chits and Finances’. The firm which was existed is ‘Lakshmi Enterprises’ and respondent 2 was the Managing Partner and respondent 3 and one Anandan were other partners. Respondent 4 is a total stranger. Exhibit P1 is the Kuri pass book of the complainant. In the 5th and in some of the pages it is printed as ‘Lakshmi Chits and Finance’. But it is not worthy that the pass book contains the seal of Lakshmi Enterprises. So in order to escape from the liability the respondents are simply lying before the forum. So their views are totally unacceptable. In the counter respondent 2 has stated that he has tried to find out the Unnikrishnan but not seen. Exhibit R1 is the copy of O.S.10/03, which was filed before this OP, in which it was stated that the Unnikrishnan has died. The enquiry of 2nd respondent to find out a person who is no more is great. These persons are trying to make a story by baseless things. In the counter respondent 3 has admitted that there was mismanagement and malfunctioning of the firm. Hence they are liable for the out- comings of the mismanagement. Regarding the transfer of Kuri in the name of complainant, the 3rd respondent is taken the view that no counter signature is seen and no explanation is given in the pass book. But he has no case that the new address is written by somebody else other than the partners and staff of the firm. The handwriting is self same and it is written by one and the same person. We conclude somebody from the Company itself has written the address. So this version of the 3rd respondent is also not maintainable. Hence the petitioner is entitled for the amount claimed.<br /> <br /> 7.Point No.2 The 2nd point is regarding compensation. In this case the respondents played a foul play. They totally denied the existence of ‘Lakshmi Chits and Finances’. If there is no seal in the pass book as’Lakshmi Enterprises’ the petitioner has no remedy at all. The total denial of the existence of Lakshmi Chits and Finances is a preplanned drama and it is to be compensated reasonably. Here unfair practice also played by the respondents. Hence the petitioner is entitled for an amount of Rs.5,000/-<br /> as compensation.<br /> <br /> 8. In the result the complaint is allowed and the respondents 2 to 4 are directed to return Rs.55,800/- (Rupees Fifty five thousand and eight hundred only) to the petitioner with interest at the rate of 12% per annum for each instalment and 6% interest from today. For the foul play, the respondents are to be penalized. So they are directed to pay Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) towards compensation. No order as to costs. Comply the order within two months.<br /> <br /> Dictated to the Confdl. Asst., transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open forum this the 24th day of July 2008.<br />