BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MYSORE-570023

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.1589/2016

DATED ON THIS THE 13^th April 2018

      Present:  1) Sri. H.M.Shivakumara Swamy

B.A., LLB., - PRESIDENT   

                     2) Sri. Devakumar.M.C.                   

                                                B.E., LLB., PGDCLP   - MEMBER

Sri H.M.SHIVAKUMARA SWAMY,

President

1.     This complaint is filed for a direction to the opposite party to pay Rs. 36,850/- and also interest on Rs. 15,000/- from12.09.2016 till payment with compensation and litigation expenses.
2.     The brief facts alleged in the complaint are: that the opposite party no.1 is partnership firm carrying business of accepting deposit from the public, opposite party no 2 to 10 are the partners of the firm. Opposite party no.2 being Managing partner canvassed to deposit the money with opposite party no 1. Thereby complainant deposited sum of Rs.15,000/- and opposite parties agreed to pay interest at 12% p.a. the opposite parties paid interest up to February 2010, thereafter there is no payment. Hence this complainant is filed.  
3.      After registering the complainant notice issued to the opposite parties. Opposite party no.1 to 4 ,6,7,9 and 10 served with notice, absent, placed exparte, opposite party no .5 and 8 appeared through advocate and filed the following version, it is not in dispute that the opposite party no 1 partnership firm other  opposite parties are the partners, but there is liability on opposite party no.2, who has collected money from complainant and issued the FD receipt to the complainant in personnel capacity, opposite parties firm was closed on 09.06.2010 and the complainant is barred by limitation, hence opposite party no 5 and 8 sought for dismissal of complaint.
4.      On the above contention, this matter is set down for evidence.  During evidence, on behalf of complainant, affidavit filed and relied on FD receipt issued by opposite party partnership firm. Opposite party no 5 and 8 absent not filed any affidavit, further evidence closed.  After hearing arguments, this matter is set down for orders.     
5.     The points arose for our consideration are:-

1. Whether the complainant establishes that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties, in not refunding the amount in deposit with interest, thereby complainant is entitled for the reliefs?
2.  What order?

6.    Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:

Point No.1 :- Partly in the Affirmative.

Point No.2 :- As per final order for the following

:: R E A S O N S ::

7.    Point No.1:- The complainant has filed affidavit evidence reiterating the allegations made in the complaint, her evidence is that she has deposited Rs. 15,000/- with opposite party no.1. The opposite parties laible to repay the same with interest at 12% p.a. In fact she has received interest up to February 2010 thereafter there is no payment Hence , the complainant and sought for the relief.
8.    The contention of opposite party no 5 and 8 is that opposite party no.2 in collusion with complainant issued FD receipt,  further the claim is barred by limitation but this contention of opposite party no 5 and 8 are to be negative, since opposite party 5 and 8 are also partners of opposite party no.1 and opposite party no.2 was managing the firm of opposite party no 1, thereby the opposite party no 5 and 8 being the partners of opposite party no 1 along with other partners liable to answer the claim.
9.     So far as limitation is concerned the opposite party collected the FD in the year 2006, but failed to returned till date of filing complainant in 2016 the amount is with opposite parties hence opposite parties are liable to answer the claim. The cause of action is continuing one  thereby the contention of opposite party no 5 and 8  that the claim is barred by limitation cannot be accepted. Thereby the opposite parties are jointly severally liable to answer the claim in question.  There is deficiency in service on the parties of opposite party. Hence, point No.1 is answered  Partly in the affirmative.
10.   Point No.2:- In view of the findings recorded on point No.1, opposite parties are jointly severally liable to refund the amount to complainant with interest 12% p.a from March-2010 till payment. Further opposite parties liable to pay compensation of Rs. 5,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs. 2,000/- to the complainant. Hence, we pass the following order:-

:: O R D E R ::

1. The complaint is hereby allowed in part.
2. The Opposite parties are jointly and severally hereby directed to refund Rs. 15,000/- with interest at 12% p.a from 01.03.2010 till payment.
3. The Opposite parties are jointly and severally hereby directed to pay of Rs. 5,000/-compensation and Rs. 2,000/- towards litigation expenses to the complainant within 60 days of this order, failing which the said sum of Rs. 7,000/- shall carry interest at 12% p.a from the date of complainant i.e., 01.12.2016 till payment.
4. In case of default to comply this order, the opposite party to undergo imprisonment and also liable for fine under section 27 of the C.P.Act, 1986.
5. Give the copies of this order to the parties, as per Rules

(Dictated to the Stenographer transcribed, typed by her, transcript corrected by us and then pronounced in open court on this the 13^th April 2018)

                          (H.M.SHIVAKUMARA SWAMY) 

                                      PRESIDENT     

                               (DEVAKUMAR.M.C.)

                                       MEMBER