By Sri. Mohamed Ismayil.C.V, Member
The grievance of the complainant is a follows:-
1. While the husband of the complainant was working at abroad, the representative of the opposite party approached him soliciting to invest fund in a profit earning business. The representative of the opposite party convinced her husband that the investment of fund in Mediaone channel would yield profit. So on the basis of direction given by the husband, the complainant issued a cheque of Rs.1,00,000/- of Federal Bank dated 30/03/2015 in favour of the opposite party. The opposite party realised the cheque issued by the complainant and money invested in the business as proposed. The opposite party also issued a receipt dated 20/01/2015 to the complainant with respect to the encashment of cheque. But at the same time the opposite party did not issue any document pertaining to the registration of Mediaone company. Later the complainant came to know from her husband that the company of the opposite party is not Private Limited Company but it belongs to the category of Limited Liability Partnership. It is stated in the complaint that in response to the query of the husband of the complainant, the opposite party replied as no reason to worry. According to the complainant the opposite party made assurance to the effect that the profit would be distributed in last month of every year. The complainant did not receive any profit until November 2016. Then the complainant contacted the opposite party and demanded the profit of her share. But according to the opposite party the complainant is a partner of LLP and the company is running under loss of business. It is contended in the complaint that the opposite party committed unfair trade practice towards the complainant. It is stated that there was no presence of complainant in the board meeting of company. Moreover there is no agreement executed between the complainant and the opposite party or any documents are provided in connection with the company. According to the complainant opposite party cheated her and thereby grabbed a huge amount. The complainant sent a notice dated 14/11/2019 to the opposite party claiming the money invested by her and the expenses incurred for legal notice. The letter sent by the complainant accepted by the opposite party on 16/01/2019, but no reply was sent by the opposite party. The acts of unfair trade practices committed by the opposite party caused much mental agony and hardship to the complainant. The money invested by the complainant is hard earned by working at abroad. So the complainant claimed Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation for sufferings of mental agony and hardship due to the acts of the opposite party. The complainant prayed for a direction to refund Rs.1,00,000/- to her as the amount invested in the company of the opposite party and also claimed her share of profit generated in the business conducted by the opposite party. The complainant also claimed 12% interest to the total amount of 4,00,000/- from the opposite party. Moreover she also claimed Rs.25,000/- as cost of the proceedings.
2. The complaint is admitted and issued notice to the opposite party. The opposite party appeared through counsel and filed version before the Commission.
3. In the version of the opposite party it is vehemently contended that the compliant is not maintainable on many accounts. According to the opposite party complaint is devoid of merits, legally unsustainable and filed with malafide intention to harass the opposite party. The opposite party further contended that the complainant has got no locus standi to approach this Commission by suppressing material facts. It is further stated in the version that complainant is not a consumer as per Consumer Protection Act. The opposite party contended that M/S MediaOne Broadcasting (India) LLP is a Limited Liability Partnership firm and incorporated under the provisions of the Limited Liability Partner Ship Act, 2008. The disputes between the partners or any other dispute regarding the partnership will not come under the jurisdiction of Consumer Commission. It is also stated that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the part of the opposite party. According to the opposite party neither the Limited Liability Partnership firm nor its designated partners are not made as a party to the complaint. There is no Managing Director for M/S Mediaone Broadcasting (India) as it is a LLP. The complainant made a non-existing legal person as party to the complaint. So it is contended that there is nonjoinder of necessary parties and misjoinder of unnecessary party or non-existing party. The opposite party placed himself as a partner of M/S Mediaone broadcasting India LLP and possessing the partnership certificate from M/s Mediaone Broadcasting (India) LLP. So, according to the opposite party any disputes between the partners shall be adjudicated as per the partnership deed, Acts and rule thereof. It is further contended that the complaint is barred by limitation. The complainant is not entitled for any amount from the opposite party. So the opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint with compensatory cost.
4. During the proceedings of the case, the opposite party filed an application challenging the maintainability of the complaint which is numbered as IA No.350/2021. The complainant filed her objection to the interlocutory application filed by the opposite party. The Commission considered the interlocutory application before admitting evidences from both sides.
5. Heard both sides in detail for considering the maintainability of the complaint.
6. The case put forward by the complainant is that she had invested Rs. 1,00,000/- in the company of the opposite party as per the direction given by her husband . It is admitted in the complaint that she invested the above said amount for earning profit from the business. The complainant further contended that she invested the money in the company of the opposite party under the impression that it was a private limited company. Later it was revealed that the company of opposite party is a Limited Liability Partnership firm. Even though the opposite party assured of giving profit to her share in the firm, no such profit was received. On the contrary, in both interlocutory application and version filed by the opposite party, it is contended that the allegations raised in the complaint is not coming under the purview of Consumer Protection Act. Considering the above pleadings of the opposite party, the Commission finds that the dispute between the complainant and opposite party is not coming under the definition of consumer dispute and the complainant is not a consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act. Here in the complaint, it is stated by the complainant that she invested the money for earning profit not for her livelihood. At the same time the opposite party pleaded that the complainant is one of the partners of the M/S Mediaone Broadcasting (India) LLP. In the objection filed by the complainant, it is stated that she is not a partner of the opposite party. But in the second paragraph of the complaint, it is averred that the complainant came to know from her husband that the firm of the opposite party was registered as an LLP and not a Private Limited Company. These rival contention raised by both sides clearly shows that the dispute cannot be resolved by a consumer Commission. The complainant produced provisional receipt issued by the opposite party along with complaint. This document indicates that the complainant contributed his share in the business of Mediaone Broad casting (India) LLP and he is also a partner of the LLP. Moreover copy of notice produced by the complainant also reveals that the money invested by the complainant was purely for business purpose.
In this circumstances the Commission finds that if there is any dispute arisen between the partners of the LLP there are specific provisions envisaged under the Limited Liability Partnership Act, 2008 to agitate the dispute. As long as no merit is seen in the complaint for entertaining the same, the Commission need not look in to other aspects. So the Commission finds that the complaint is not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act. Hence complaint is dismissed.
Dated this 15th day of February , 2023.
Mohandasan . K, President
Preethi Sivaraman.C, Member
Mohamed Ismayil.C.V, Member
