Sri.D.Krishnappa,<br /> President<br /> <br /> 1. The Complainants have filed this Complaint against the Opposite parties under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with their allegation that the 1st Opposite party is the Financial Institution doing the finance business in the name of ‘Srinidhi Finance Corporation’. That the 1st Complainant is the wife of late Jayasen Kumar, and 2nd & 3rd Complainants are the children of late Jayasen who was the Managing Partner of the 1st Opposite party died in the traffic accident. Thereafter, the 2nd Opposite party became the Assistant Managing Partner and looking after the business of the finance. Accordingly, late Jayasen Kumar on 18.03.2001 invested Rs.1,00,000/-, on 07.03.2002 invested Rs.1,00,000/-, on 20.06.2002 invested Rs.1,50,000/- and on 07.03.2002 Rs.50,000/- respectively. The Opposite party agreed to pay interest at 2.5% p.m. That the Opposite party till December 2005 has paid the interest to the above said amounts regularly, but thereafter failed. Therefore, the Opposite parties are due a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- as principal amount and interest which comes to Rs.1,50,000/-. They got issued a legal notice on 26.03.2007 to the Opposite parties who have sent untenable reply. Therefore, have prayed for a direction to the Opposite parties to pay them Rs.5,50,000/- in all and to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- and to award cost.<br /> 2. The Opposite parties have filed a joint version admitting that the Complainants are the heirs of Jayasen Kumar and have contended that the deceased Jayasen Kumar was the Managing Partner of the Opposite parties, therefore was not a Consumer under the Act. That deceased himself was looking after the affairs of the finance corporation. After his death the 1st Complainant was in custody of all the documents until she returned them on 20.07.2007 after filing this Complaint. That the office was situated in the house of the deceased and the 1st Complainant was working has an Associate. After the death of the husband of the 1st Complainant the partners did not show any interest in continuation of the business, taking advantage of it, the complainants have by concocting fixed deposit receipts have come up with false Complaint. That the fixed deposit receipts produced by the Complainants lack particulars as they do not contain the date of maturity, rate of interest and they are not fully filled up, as such are created and therefore contending that they are not liable, have prayed for dismissal of the Complaint.<br /> 3. In the course of enquiry into the Complaint allegations, the Opposite parties got summoned certain documents of the finance corporation from the custody of the 1st Complainant to this case. The 1st Complainant and the 3rd Opposite party have filed their affidavit evidence. The 3rd Opposite party has filed affidavit evidence on behalf of other Opposite parties also. The Complainant has produced certain books. Heard the counsel for both the parties and perused the records.<br /> 4. On the above contentions, following points for determination arise.<br /> 1. Whether the Complainants prove that Late Jayasen Kumar made fixed deposit in the 1st Opposite party finance corporation on 4 different dates amounting to Rs.4,00,000/- and that the Opposite parties are liable to pay those amounts with interest and they having not paid the same have caused deficiency in their service?<br /> 2. Whether the Complainants are entitled for the relief prayed for?<br /> 5. Our findings are as under:-<br /> Point no.1 : In the Negative.<br /> Point no.2 : In the Negative.<br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 6. Points no. 1 & 2:- The 1st Complainant who is the wife of Late Jayasen Kumar who was the Managing Partner of the 1st Opposite party Finance Corporation in her Complaint as well as in the affidavit evidence filed by her contended that after the death of her husband on 27.11.2002, the 2nd Opposite party has become the Assistant Managing Partner is looking after the business of the finance and she further referring to these 4 fixed deposits receipts produced in this case has also referred to few entries found in the so called resolution book and one note book which according to her in which fixed deposit made by her late husband and other investors are shown and therefore contending that the Opposite parties who continued the partnership firm have failed to pay the deposits with interest and has sought for the relief as prayed. The learned counsel appearing for them also argued that the Opposite parties no.2 to 6 who are the partners of 1st Opposite party continued the partnership business and therefore they are liable to pay the amounts claimed by the Complainants and has produced a copy of the order passed by this Forum in CC 181/2006 dated 28.11.2006 to show that the 1st Complainant has been given the relief of Rs.25,000/-. But this order of this Forum is not pertaining to the Opposite parties Finance Corporation, but is of another finance corporation run by her husband. The counsel for the Complainants produced two Xerox copies of some investments made by two other investors in the 1st opposite party Finance Corporation, but we did not understand how they are relevant and help the Complainants to get the reliefs sought in this Complaint.<br /> 7. The learned counsel appearing for the Opposite parties argued that the husband of the 1st Complainant had started the Finance Corporation by taking Opposite parties no.2 to 6 as partners were only nominal and that business was run in the house of the Complainants and the deceased Jayasen Kumar was the Managing Partner was himself managing the whole affairs and stated that no documents are produced to prove the alleged investments by him except the fixed deposits receipt produced which are all blank with regard to certain material facts and stated that the Complainants have by concocting those fixed deposit receipts have made false claim against the Opposite parties. <br /> 8. As contended by the counsel for the Opposite parties, on perusal of these fixed deposit receipts it is clear that these fixed deposit receipts do not contain the due date that is the maturity date, the amount payable on maturity and rate of interest payable. All these columns are left blank in all these 4 fixed deposit receipts, these fixed deposit receipts bear the signatures of the husband of the 1st Complainant only. The Complainants have produced a resolution book in which as pointed out by them there is only one entry showing as if a fixed deposit of Rs.1,00,000/- belongs to Jayasen Kumar. The Complainants have not pointed out any other entries pertaining to these fixed deposit receipts in this book. The Complainants have also relied on another note book in which we find some entries showing the names of some persons, who alleged to had invested their moneys in the form of fixed deposits for interest and the counsel for the Complainant has pointed out 4 entries in this book which show as if late Jayasen Kumar invested a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- on different dates with the 1st Opposite party. It is also contended by the Complainants that the Opposite parties paid interests on these deposits up to certain time, but thereafter they have failed to pay. Though, it is found under the fixed deposit dated 18.03.2001 and 07.03.2002 some interest is shown to have been paid but no such interest is shown to have been paid on Rs.1,50,000/- invested on 20.06.2002. Even at these entries, we do not find any initials or entries of having paid that interest to the depositor or any receipts having collected for payment of these interests. Further, on perusal of the fixed deposit receipts, it is shown as if these deposits are entered in 4 different ledgers, but the Complainants have not produced any such ledgers. The note book, we have referred to is not titled as a ledger and serial number shown therein are page numbers only and therefore this notebook cannot be called as ledger. <br /> 9. The Opposite parties have seriously disputed the genuineness of the fixed deposit receipts and investments made by the late husband of the 1st Complainant. Admittedly, the husband of the Complainant was the managing partner was himself tooking after the entire affairs of the corporation. Therefore, when that 1st Opposite party Finance Corporation was running a financing institution must have got itself registered with the Registrar of Cooperative Societies and should have maintained the ledger book, fixed deposits register, daybook, bank account etc. to show the transaction it was doing. But the Complainants have not produced any of those material documents. If the husband of the Complainant had invested a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- on 4 different dates there should have been entries in the relevant books they were required to maintain and shown remittance of those amounts to their bank account or if they had dealt with that money on the same day they could have produced those documents as how those amounts were appropriated or adjusted. Nothing is coming out from the Complainants. The Complainants have contended that after the death of the husband of the 1st Complainant, the 2nd Opposite party was appointed as a Assistant Managing Partner. Absolutely, the Complainants have not produced any resolution or any documents to show his appointment as an Assistant Managing Partner and he took over the management of the finance corporation. The parties have produced a copy of the partnership deed, which contain a provision for reconstituting the partnership concern on the death or insolvency of a partner which says the partnership shall not be determined by death or insolvency of a partner and the other partners shall be entitled to continue the same with the inclusion of the legal representatives of the deceased or insolvent partner. But in the case on hand nothing is placed before us to show that they had any meeting or a resolution passed taking these Complainants the hairs of late managing partner to continue the partnership business and a partnership deed was redrafted as required. The 1st Complainant admittedly was in custody of all the books and documents of the firm in her house till they were secured by the Opposite parties through issue of a notice on 20.07.2007, but none of the documents produced before us show any transaction pertaining to these fixed deposits in the partnership business of these parties in the course of its business and taken to the account of the partnership firm so as to fashion the liability to the Opposite parties. <br /> 10. The Complainants have produced a Xerox copy of the audit report purporting to be the report for the year 1999, 2000-01, 2001-02 which is of dated 22.01.2004. In this audit report copy 4 entries are shown indicating the questioned investments by the husband of the 1st Complainant. But, the Opposite parties have produced a letter of the Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Mysore to show that audit report was not at all sent to the Co-operative Department for its approval and it is argued by the counsel for the Opposite parties that the copy of the audit report has come to light only now during the enquiry of this Complaint and submitted that the audit report was not genuine one as the same was not sent to the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies. Therefore, in the absence of material documents of the 1st Opposite party to show the investments made by the late husband of the 1st Complainant, those amounts were taken to the account of the 1st Opposite party Firm, and Opposite parties continued the business, the Opposite parties cannot be held as accountable for those amounts. Besides this as pointed out by us the fixed deposit receipts lack required particulars and all those receipts are signed only by the late husband of the 1st Complainant and the transaction appears to had not been done as indicated in the partnership deed by the managing partner with another partner. Thus the claim of the Complainants casts total doubt of the genuineness of these documents and added to this the Complainants since have not proved those investments to the satisfactions of this Forum. The Complainants cannot attribute any deficiency to the Opposite parties and are also not entitled for the relief sought for. As the result, we answer points no.1 & 2 in the negative and pass the following order:- <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 1. The Complaint is dismissed.<br /> 2. Parties to bear their own costs.<br /> 3. Give a copy of this order to each party according to Rules<br />