A.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
AT HYDERABAD
F.A. 125/2007 against P.P. 64/2005 in C.C. 37/2004
Dist. Forum, Karimnagar.
Between:
B. Nageswar Reddy
S/o. Raj Reddy
Managing Partner
M/s. Sri Raja Rajeshwara Commercial Finance
Jagitial, R/o. Qtr. No. A-24,
Dharoor Camp, Jagitial,
Karimnagar. *** Appellant/
Opposite Party
And
1. Mrs. Abbasu Kanthamma
W/o. Shankaraiah
R/o. Nampally,
Konaraopet, and other *** Respondents/
Complainants.
Counsel for the Appellant: M/s. K. Visweswara Rao.
Counsel for the Resps: Served.
CORAM:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D. APPA RAO, PRESIDENT
&
SMT. M. SHREESHA, MEMBER
FRIDAY, THIS THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND NINE
Oral Order: (Per Smt. M. Shreesha, Member)
****
1) Aggrieved by the order in P.P. 64/2005 in C.C. 37/2004 on the file of Dist. Forum, Karimnagar opposite party preferred this appeal u/s 15 of the Consumer Protection Act.
2) The brief facts as set out in the case are that the complainants at the instance of the opposite party deposited Rs. 5,000/- each on 24.12.1996 and the maturity value being Rs. 10,000/- payable on 24.12.2002 as shown hereunder:
| S.No. | Depositor’s name | FDR No. | Date | Amount | Maturity Date | Maturity Value |
| 1. | Abbasu Kanthamma | 1537 | 24.12.1996 | 5000 | 24.12.2002 | 10,000 |
| | | 1535 | 24.12.1996 | 5000 | 24.12.2002 | 10,000 |
| 2. | Abbasu Anjaneyulu | 1538 | 24.12.1996 | 5000 | 24.12.2002 | 10,000 |
| | | 1539 | 24.12.1996 | 5000 | 24.12.2002 | 10,000 |
| 3 | Musuku Bala Lingam | 1536 | 24.12.1996 | 5000 | 24.12.2002 | 10,000 |
| 4. | Goli Vidya Rani | 1540 | 24.12.1996 | 5000 | 24.12.2002 | 10,000 |
| 5. | Chindam Ramoja | 1780 | 24.12.1996 | 5000 | 24.12.2002 | 10,000 |
| 6. | Vanga Rajalingam | 1027 | 16.10.1996 | 5000 | 16.10.2002. | 10,000 |
Even after maturity date, the opposite party did not pay the amount and therefore filed the complaint to pay Rs. 10,000/- each and Rs. 10,000/- towards compensation together with costs of Rs. 10,000/-.
3) The opposite party remained ex-parte before the Dist. Forum.
4) Based on the affidavit evidence and the documents i.e., Exs. A1 to A8 the Dist. Forum allowed the complaint directing the opposite party to pay the maturity value covered under the FDR with interest @ 9% p.a., from the date of maturity till the date of realization together with costs of Rs. 300/- each.
5) Aggrieved by the said order the opposite party preferred this appeal when the NBW was issued against him for non-compliance of order of the Dist. Forum in the execution petition filed by the complainants.
6) Learned Counsel for the appellant/Opposite Party submitted that the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. The Dist. Forum failed to consider that M/s. Raja Rajeswara Commercial Finance is a partnership firm and he is only a proforma partner. Without impleading the other partners, passing orders against him and executing the same is bad under law. As per the Indian Partnership Act all the partners are jointly and severally liable for the acts of the firm. The Dist. Forum ought not to have awarded Rs. 10,000/- with interest thereby directing them to pay interest on interest which is not permissible under law. The appellant came to know about the order only when the NBW was issued against him. The complaint is not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act in view of provisions of Protection of Depositors Act, and therefore prayed to set-aside the order passed by the Dist. Forum.
7) The point that arises for consideration is whether the order of the Dist. Forum is vitiated by mis-appreciation of facts or law in this regard?
8) As seen from the record Ex. A1 to A8 are the Fixed Deposit Receipts issued by M/s. Sri Raja Rajeswara Commercial Finance duly signed by its Managing Partner wherein they agreed to pay Rs. 10,000/-on the date of maturity the amount being Rs. 5,000/-. The complainants submit that in spite of several demands, the appellant has been evading to pay the maturity value covered under the FDRs on one pretext or the other and finally refused to pay on 23.2.2004. Therefore they were constrained to file the complaint for realization of amount covered under the FDRs.
9) It is pertinent to note that the appellant/opposite party remained ex-parte before the Dist. Forum. He did not choose to context the matter. He did not take any steps when according to him it is a partnership firm to implead the other partners by filing a petition at least before this Commission. Belatedly, now in the appeal he came up with a contention that he has nothing to do with the FDRS in question and he is not liable to pay any amount covered under the FDRs. It is pertinent to note that a perusal of the FDRs Exs. A1 to A8 show that they were issued by none other than the appellant himself in the capacity of Managing Partner with a promise that they would pay Rs. 10,000/- on the date of maturity for a deposit of Rs. 5,000/-. Having promised to pay the amount covered under the FDRS on maturity now they cannot turn round and contend that they are not liable. The appellant also did not file the alleged deed of partnership. It is pertinent to note that the appeal is against the P.P. order and the order in C.D. has become final. It is for the appellant to recover the amount awarded by the Dist. Forum in accordance with law in terms of the deed of partnership. We do not see any irregularity or infirmity in the order passed by the Dist. Forum. We do not find any merits in the appeal.
10) In the result the appeal is dismissed, however, in the circumstances of the case no costs. Time for compliance six weeks. The orders in P.P. are suspended for a period of six weeks.
1) _______________________________
PRESIDENT
2) ________________________________
MEMBER
3) ________________________________
MEMBER
Dt. 26. 02. 2010.
*pnr
