BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : AT HYDERABAD.
FA.No.636/2010 against EA.No.108/2009 in CC.No.1384/2004 District Consumer Forum-III, Hyderabad.
Between:
C.Anuradha, D/o.C.Suryanarayana,
Rep. by her GPA holder, C.S.Narayana,
S/o.C.Suryanarayana Shastri,
R/o.12-2-823/A/75/2,
Santhoshnagar Colony, Mehdipatnam,
Hyderabad.
…Appellant/Petitioner/Complainant.
And
1.M/s.Abheesta Finance Company,
Partnership Firm, Rep. by its Partners:
Regd.Office : Flat No.D1, 1st Floor, Sukhamani Apts.
Lakdikapool, Hyderabad.
2.A.Venkata Subbaiah,
Partner, Abheesta Finance Company,
R/o.D-81, Madhuranagar, Sanjeeva Reddy Nagar,
Hyderabad – 38.
3.M.Madan Mohan Rao,
Partner, Abheesta Finance Company,
12-2-823/A/30, Santoshnagar Colony,
Mehdipatnam,Hyderabad- 500 029.
4.M.Srinivasa Rao, S/o, M.V.Shastri,
Partner, Abheesta Finance Company,
Record Assistant, A.P.High Court,
Hyderabad.
5.K.Kishan,
Partner, Abheesta Finance Company,
R/o.6-3-249/7/1/B, Navin Nagar Colony,
Khairatabad, Hyderabad.
6.K.Vijaya Lakshmi,
Partner, Abheesta Finance Company,
R/o.2-2-647/49, Central Excise Colony,
New Nallakunta, Hyderabad – 18.
7.N.Venkaeshwara Rao,
Partner, Abheesta Finance Company,
R/o.2-2-1085/A/3, Amberpet,
Hyderabad.
8.M/s.Abheesta Finance Company,
Partner, Abheesta Finance Company,
Regd.Office : Flat No.D1, 1st Floor, Sukhamani Apts.
Lakdikapool, Hyderabad.
…Respondents/Opp.Parties.
Counsel for the Appellant : Mr.V.Gourisankara Rao.
Counsel for the Respondents : Admn.stage.
QUORUM: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT,
SRI SYED ABDULLAH, HON’BLE MEMBER,
AND
SRI R.LAKSHMI NARASIMHA RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER.
WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JUNE,
TWO THOUSAND TEN.
Oral Order (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice D.Appa Rao, President)
*******
1. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and having perused the record, we are of the opinion that the appeal can be disposed of at the stage of admission.
2. Appellant is the complaint. On a complaint filed by her against M/s.Abheesta Finance Company, R.1 and its partners R.2 to R.8 for recovery of the amount covered under Fixed Deposit Receipt, the District Forum after enquiry by its order dated 3.2.2006 allowed the complaint against opposite party No.1 firm, however dismissed against opposite parties 2 to 8 on the ground that the complainant could not establish that they were the partners of opposite party No.1 firm.
3. Three years thereafter the complainant filed petition under Sec.27(a) of Consumer Protection Act impleading opposite parties 2 to 8 although the complaint was dismissed against them on the ground that they were partners of the Firm. The District Forum after considering the order passed earlier dismissed the application against opposite parties 2 to 8.
4. Aggrieved by the said order the complainant preferred this appeal contending that since they are the partners of the Firm and by virtue of the orders, she can take action against R.2 to R.8 though the complaint was dismissed against them.
5. At the outset, we may state that the complainant did not file any document in order to prove that opposite parties 2 to 8 against whom he intends to take action under Sec.27 of C.P.Act, are partners. When the complaint was dismissed against opposite parties 2 to 8, at no stretch of imagination, they can be impleaded once again for taking coercive steps for realization of the amount. The complainant did not prefer any appeal against the original order when the matter was dismissed against opposite parties 2 to 8. The said order has become final. She cannot circumvent the order of the District Forum by impleading R.2 to R.8 as parties. This is contrary to the orders passed by the District Forum. This is an abuse of process of law. There are no merits.
6. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. No costs.
PRESIDENT
MEMBER
MEMBER
Dt:23.06.2010.
Vvr.
