Date of filing : 11-12-2008
Date of order : 09-11-2011
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD
CC. 281/2008
Dated this, the 9th day of November 2011
PRESENT
SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT
SMT.P.RAMADEVI : MEMBER
SMT.K.G.BEENA : MEMBER
M.Sathyanarayana, } Complainant
S/o.Late.Kunhirama Maniyani,
Swamikripa, Badiadka,
Po.Perdala, 671551.
(Adv. A.Balakrishnan Nair, Kasaragod)
1. M.M. Infotech Ltd, } Opposite parties
(Formerly Shri.M.M. FINCO LTD),
Regd.Office, No.56,Sharada Plaza,
IX th Main, 34d Block, Jayanagar,
Bangalore.
(Exparte)
2. C.H.Gopalakrishna Bhat,(Dead)
Chalathadka House,
Po.Kuntikana, Kasaragod. 671551.
3. C.H.Mahabaleshwara Sharma,
Chalathadka House,
Po.Kuntikana, Kasaragod. 671 551
4. C.H.Keshava Prasad,
Chalathadka House,
Po.Kuntikana, Kasaragod. 671 551
(Ops to 3 & 4 Advs.M.Narayana Bhat & Sathyashankara.M)
5. Udayashankar.M,
No.13,KEB Layour, Vivekananda Nagar,
B.S.K. 3rd Stage, Bangalore.85.
6. Mahabala Bhat.M,
No.435, Ist G-Cross, 3rd ‘B’ Main,
Hosakere Halli, B.S.K, 3rd Stage,
Bangalore.85.
7. K. Shivarama Bhat,
No.289,Ist Main 6th Cross,
Hanumantha Nagar, Bangalore.19.
8. M.V.Rajesh, Laithya, Puthur.Po,
D.K. Karnataka St. 574201.
(Ops 5,6,7 & Exparte)
O R D E R
SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ, PRESIDENT
Case of the complainant in brief is that he deposited `11,000/- with opposite party No.1 firm on 28-6-1999. But it has not been refunded inspite of the assurance to repay `16621/- on its maturity date i.e. 28-06-2002. Opposite parties 2 to 8 are the directors of opposite party No.1 firm. Hence the complaint.
2. Though notices to opposite parties were issued by registered post. Opposite parties 3&4 appeared through counsel. Notice to Opposite parties 2,5,6,7 &8 returned unserved. Complainant filed a memo stating that opposite party No.2 is expired and he is not seeking any relief from opposite party No.2. Thereafter publication of notice was ordered against opposite party No.1, 5, 6, 7&8 in a Kannada daily ‘Hosadigantha’. Even after publication of notice opposite parties 1, 5 ,6, 7 &8 remained absent. Hence they had to be set exparte. Opposite parties 3 & 4 filed version jointly.
3. Opposite parties 3 & 4 filed version denying all the allegations averred by the complainant. According to opposite parties 3 & 4 they have no role in the amount deposited by complainant. They are arrayed as opposite parties only because they happened to be the children of opposite party No.2. The fact of death of opposite party No.2 has been suppressed by the complainant at the time of filing the complaint. According to Opposite parties 3 & 4 they were neither the directors nor the agents of opposite party No.1. The Forum has no jurisdiction to try the complaint and opposite party No.1 is a registered company under the companies Act and it has its own legal entity. The grievance if any against the company has to be proceeded against the company after arraying the directors as party. Instead of that complainant is trying to hood wink opposite parties 3 & 4 who have no connection with the said company or its affairs. The averments of the complainant discloses only civil liability for recovering of money which has to be enforced against the company. The complaint is therefore bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties. Complaint is devoid of merits and it is barred by limitation also.
4. Complainant produced Exts A1 to A4 documents in support of his case. Opposite parties 3 & 4 has not adduced any oral or documentary evidence.
5. The prime contention of opposite parties 3 & 4 is that they were neither the directors or agents of opposite party No.1 company and they are impleaded only because they happened to be the sons of opposite party No.2 who was one of the director of the company.
6. The complainant has not produced any documents to show that opposite parties 3 & 4 are any way connected with the deposit made by the complainant. Hence we are of the view that they are not liable to pay the amount a claimed by the complainant.
7. The further contention of opposite parties 3 & 4 are that the Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to try the case. The contention is not acceptable since the opposite parties 3& 4 are residing within the territorial limits of this Forum.
8. The further contention of opposite parties 3 & 4 is that the complaint is barred by limitation. Though this contention is correct the Forum admitted the complaint after condoning the delay caused in filing the complaint in view of Sec 24 A of the CP Act.
Therefore the complaint is allowed and opposite parties1, 5, 6,7 & 8 are jointly and severally liable to repay `16,621/- with interest @ 9% from 28-06-2002 the date of maturity of the FD to till date of payment. Time for compliance 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exts.
A1. Photocopy of Cumulative Deposit for an amount of `16,621/-
A2. 15-03-2007 photocopy of letter went by Complainant to the MD M.M. Infotek Ltd
A3. Returned Registered letter
A4. Photocopy of Order in OP NO.99/04 of C.D.R.F, Kasaragod.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Pj/ Forwarded by Order
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
