A.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
AT HYDERABAD.
F.A. 1499/2006 against C.D 258/2004, Dist. Forum-II, Hyderabad.
Between:
U. Jawahar Lal
S/o. Late U. Samba Murthy
R/o. Flat No. 305, 3rd Floor, 5th Block
Prajay City, Miyapur
Ranga Reddy Dist. *** Appellant/
O.P No. 3
And
1. Smt. Lavali Swarajam
H.No. 16-2-738/A/4
B. Block, Near Asmangadh
Water Tank, Malakpet Colony
Hyderabad-500 036. *** Respondent/
Complainant.
2. M/s. Nagarjuna Finance Ltd.
H.No. 1-2-597/12
Valmikninagar,
Hyderabad-500 029.
Rep. by its Chairman
K. S. Raju
3. M/s. Nagarjuna Finance Ltd.
H.No. 1-2-597/12
Valmikninagar,
Hyderabad-500 029.
Rep. by its President
Selvaraj
4. D. Bhaskar Rao
Vice President
H.No. 41, B.N. Reddy Colony
Road No. 14, Banjara Hills
Hyderabad-500 034. *** Respondents/
(R2 to R4 are not necessary parties) Ops 1, 2 & 4.
Counsel for the Appellant: Mr. V. Venkata Ramana
Counsel for the Resp: M/s. S. Chandrasekhar Reddy (R1)
CORAM:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D. APPA RAO, PRESIDENT
SMT. M. SHREESHA, MEMBER
&
SRI SYED ABDULLAH, MEMBER
MONDAY, THIS THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND NINE
Oral Order: (Per Hon’ble Justice D. Appa Rao, President)
*****
This is an appeal preferred by opposite party No. 3 directing him to pay the amount covered under the Fixed Deposit Receipts.
2) The case of the complainant in brief is that she had deposited an amount of Rs. 60,000/- with R1 Nagarjuna Finance Company on 11.11.1997 under two FDRs which agreed to pay interest @ 16% p.a. and the date of maturity being 11.11.2000. When the company did not pay interest which it had agreed to pay, and on insistence the Manager of the finance company showed Company Law Board order wherein it was directed to pay 30%, 35% and 35% with interest in three spells on 11.11.2001, 11.11.2002 and 8.8.2003 respectively. However, it did not pay. On persistent requests the finance company issued three cheques Dt. 30.5.2002, 30.6.2002 and 30.7.2002 but they were bounced. When she requested R3 & R4 Manager and Vice President respectively they postponed payment. Later, she came to learn that a criminal complaint was filed against Nagarjuna Finance Company and its President and four other directors. Since the amount covered under the FDRs was not paid she claimed Rs. 60,000/- together with interest @ 16% p.a., compensation and costs.
3) Opposite Parties 1 to 3 did not choose to contest and therefore they were set-exparte. R4 resisted the case. It is his contention that he was an employee and that he ceased to be Vice-President of the company from September, 1997. He did not issue any receipt on behalf of the company. Sri K. S. Raju was the Chairman. He was only a director and resigned on 16.9.2000 evidenced under Form No. 32 issued by the Registrar of Companies, therefore, he prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4) The complainant in proof of her case filed her affidavit evidence and got Exs. A1 to A16 marked while R4 filed Exs. B1 & B2.
5) The Dist. Forum after considering the evidence placed on record dismissed the complaint against R4 as not maintainable as he was only an employee, however, directed R1 to R3 to pay the amount covered under the FDRs together with compensation of Rs. 5,000/- and costs of Rs. 1,000/-.
6) Aggrieved by the said decision, R3 filed this appeal contending that the Dist. Forum did not appreciate the facts in correct perspective. No opportunity was given to him. He was not even an employee of the company when the deposit was made. He was not a Manager of the company. He was appointed as Assistant Grade AA3 on 11.5.2001 evidenced under appointment letter, and therefore prayed that the appeal be allowed against him.
7) Before appreciating the contentions of the appellant herein, we may state that earlier when the appellant herein preferred this appeal he did not deposit the statutory amount as contemplated u/s 15 of the Consumer Protection Act. This Commission by order Dt. 22.7.2005 rejected the appeal for non-depositing of statutory amount. As against the said order the appellant filed W.P. No. 16477/2006 before the High Court questioning the constitutional validity of Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act for insisting statutory deposit for preferring an appeal. The Division Bench of High Court presided over by Hon’ble Chief Justice by order Dt. 9.8.2006 dismissed the Writ Petition, however observing that the appellant be directed to deposit statutory amount and on such deposit the State Commission revive the appeal. By virtue of said order the appeal was revived and registered it as F.A. No. 1499/2006.
8) Learned counsel for the respondent contended that the appeal could not have been numbered and the High Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the matter, and once the appeal is rejected it cannot be revived. The appellant intended that since the complainant has not preferred any appeal against the order of the High Court, it has become final and it does not allow the complainant to question the order of the High Court.
9) A perusal of record does not show that notice was in fact served against the appellant before the Dist. Forum. However, the fact remains that the appellant did not file his version before the Dist. Forum. Now in the appeal while enclosing his order of appointment as Assistant Grade AA3 contends that he had nothing to do with the company. He was only a clerk drawing a salary of Rs. 4,500/- per month. He was appointed as Jr. Asst. Gr.I on 11.6.1993 and later he was relieved on 11.5.2001 on resignation, therefore the FDRs issued by the company in no way mulct liability on him for payment of amount.
10) The complainant except contending that the appeal was not maintainable in view of non-deposit of statutory amount could not dispute the designation of the appellant as Assistant. In the complaint he was designated as Manager of the Nagarjuna Finance Company Ltd. Since the proceedings under Consumer Protection Act are summary in nature, and in the teeth of ex-facie evidence of service certificate filed by him to show that he was only an assistant working with Nagarjuna Finance Ltd., at that time, we do not intend to remand the matter to Dist. Forum for fresh adjudication. Though the complainant has filed the FDRs and the correspondence, evidently the appellant had never acknowledged any of these proceedings. When the complainant issued legal notice under Ex. A11 she did not issue any notice to the appellant alleging that he was the Manager and liable to pay the amount. Since the complainant could not show that the appellant has anything to do with M/s. Nagarjuna Finance Ltd., and Ex. A1 to A16 do not disclose that he had anything to do with M/s. Nagarjuna Finance Ltd., except the fact that he worked as an employee the order of the Dist. Forum directing him to pay the amount does not sustain. When the appellant could establish that he was only an Assistant, necessarily the complaint against him is unsustainable.
11) In all these cases, whenever the companies are arrayed as parties, we have been observing that the complainants are impleading the employees designating them as Manager etc. The fact remains that when the companies are being arrayed as opposite parties necessarily the complainant had to implead the persons who are liable to pay the amount on behalf of the company. Undoubtedly the Managing Director and Directors of the company could be held liable for payment of amounts. At no stretch of imagination the employee could be directed to pay the amount covered under the FDRs issued by the Managing Director of the company. Since the fact that the appellant was an employee of the company was not controverted, we have to hold that he was not liable to pay the amount covered under the FDRs.
12) In the result the appeal is allowed. Consequently the complaint against appellant is dismissed. However, in the circumstances of the case no costs.
PRESIDENT LADY MEMBER MALE MEMBER
Dt. 16. 03. 2009.
“UP LOAD – O.K”
