Sri. Ashok Kumar J.Dhole,<br /> President,<br /> Common order in CC 394 and 395/05<br /> <br /> 1. These complaints are disposed by this common order, as the question of law involved in both these complaints is the same. C.C.394/05 is filed by minor Prameetha Jain through his next friend father for recovery of Rs.20,000/- with interest and cost. Whereas C.C.395/05 is filed by Smt.Vanamala B.Surya for recovery of Rs.20,000/- with interest and cost. It is the case of both complainants that M/s Srinidhi Finance Corporation (Reg.) is a partnership firm with whom they have deposited an amount of Rs.10,000/- in fixed deposit and on the date of maturity, they were entitled to receive an amount of Rs.20,000/- each from the partnership firm. In spite of repeated attempts, the complainants could not seek refund hence, they have filed these complaints on the ground of deficiency in service. It is importance to note that the complainants have filed these complaint, against the partnership firm showing the name of “S.N.Madhu” as Assistant Managing partner. He appeared, filed his version, and affidavit stating that he is neither the Managing Director of the firm, nor a Managing Partner. It is further contended that he is neither in possession of the records nor properties of the firm. He is not aware about the allegedly deposits made by the complainants. It is further contended that the Managing Partner of firm died long back and the firm is dissolved and not in existence. In view of the above facts, the complaints are not maintainable against him.<br /> 2. Points for our considerations is as under:-<br /> 1. Whether complainants have proved that Sri.S.N.Madhu is liable to defend, for and on behalf of “M/s Srinidhi Finance Corporation”, and the complaints are maintainable?<br /> 3. The above point has been answered as under:- Negative. <br /> REASONS<br /> 4. It is important to note that complainants have not pleaded in the complaints, who were the partners of M/s Srinidhi Finance Corporation. The complainants have not contended that who was Managing Partner of the firm when such deposits were made and accepted. The complainants have not mentioned the fact that the Managing Partner of the firm is dead. There is no document to show that O.P. “S.N.Madhu” is lawfully entitled to defend the partnership firm. The death of a partner, ordinarily has the legal effect of dissolving firm. His personal representative have no right to step into his shoes, they can not take part in the management of the firm. The complainants have not implead all other partners of the firm as parties to this complaint. In view of the above facts, we come to conclusion that complainants have miserably failed to prove that Sri.S.N.Madhu is not liable to defend the partnership firm named “M/s Srinidhi Finance Corporation”. Hence, the complaints are not maintainable in law. In view of the above facts, we proceed to pass following order:- <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 1. Both complaints are hereby dismissed with observation that the complainants are entitled to file proper case against all partners of the firm, after proper legal notices. <br /> <br /> 2. Parties to bear the costs.<br /> <br /> 3. Keep original order copy in C.C.394/05 and Xerox copy in C.C.395/05.<br /> <br /> 4. Give a copy of this order to both parties according to Rules.<br />