Andhra Pradesh
Chittoor-II at triputi
CC/64/2015
C.Girijamma, W/o. C.Krishna Reddy, Rep. by authorized agent Yerra Venkateswarlu - Complainant(s)
Versus
M/s. VIGOR Venpro India Private Limited, rep. by its Managing Director, - Opp.Party(s)
Desineni Jayachandra
27 Jan 2017
ORDER
Filing Date: 27.08.2015
Order Date:27.01.2017
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II,
CHITTOOR AT TIRUPATI
PRESENT: Sri.M.Ramakrishnaiah, President ,
Smt. T.Anitha, Member
FRIDAY THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY, TWO THOUSAND AND SEVENTEEN
C.C.No.64/2015
Between
1. C.Girijamma,
W/o.C.Krishna Reddy,
Hindu, aged 39 years,
R/at. Shop No.66,
Indira Priyadarshni Vegetable Market,
Tirupati.
2. S.Rajendra Reddy,
S/o. S.Krishna Reddy,
Hindu, aged 44 years,
R/at. Shop No.4,
Indira Priyadarshni Vegetable Market,
Tirupati.
3. Bachetty Satyanarayana,
S/o. B.Dorairaj,
Hindu, aged 23 years,
R/at. D.No.200, Tilak Road,
Tirupati.
4. S.Reddy Ansar,
S/o. S.Abdulrahim Sab,
Hindu, aged 54 years,
R/at. Shop No.130,
Indira Priyadarshni Vegetable Market,
Tirupati.
5. S.Venkata Ramana Reddy,
S/o. S.Narasimha Reddy,
Hindu, aged 48 years,
Shop No.43,
India Priyadarshni Vegetable Market,
Tirupati.
6. Y.Amarnath Reddy,
S/o. Y.Yerrama Reddy,
Hindu, aged 43 years,
R/at. Shop No.53,
Indira Priyadarshni Vegetable Market,
Tirupati.
7. P.Nagaraju,
S/o. P.Subramanyam,
Hindu, aged 39 years,
R/at. Shop No.15,
Indira Priyadarshni Vegetable Market,
Tirupati.
8. N.Sridhar,
S/o. N.Munaiah,
Hindu, aged 28 years,
R/at. Shop No.63,
Indira Priyadarshni Vegetable Market,
Tirupati.
9. J.Narendra,
S/o. J.Muni Rathnam,
Hindu, aged 39 years,
R/at. Shop No.60,
Indira Priyadarshni Vegetable Market,
Tirupati.
10. P.Ramesh Reddy,
S/o. P.Nagi Reddy,
Hindu, aged 38 years,
R/at. Shop No.111,
Indira Priyadarshni Vegetable Market,
Tirupati.
11. B.Ramachandra Reddy,
S/o. B.Venkat Reddy,
Hindu, aged 68 years,
R/at. Shop No.66,
Indira Priyadarshni Vegetable Market,
Tirupati.
12. A.Balaji,
S/o. A.Srinaiah,
Hindu, aged 27 years,
R/at. Maruthi Nagar,
Korlagunta,
Tirupati.
13. M.Ravi Varma,
S/o. M.Chenga Reddy,
Hindu, aged 35 years,
R/at. Shop No.100,
Indira Priyadarshni Vegetable Market,
Tirupati.
14. M.Sivalingam,
S/o. M.Nagaraju,
Hindu, aged 59 years,
R/at. D.No.280, Mangalam,
Tirupati.
15. P.Devarajulu Reddy,
S/o. P.Chinnama Reddy,
Hindu, aged 42 years,
Working at Shop No.59,
Indira Priyadarshni Vegetable Market,
Tirupati.
16. K.Santhi,
W/o. K.Raju,
Hindu, aged 27 years,
Working at Shop No.59,
Indira Priyadarshni Vegetable Market,
Tirupati.
17. A.Chandra,
S/o. A.Venkateswara Reddy,
Hindu, aged 32 years,
Working at Shop No.59,
Indira Priyadarshni Vegetable Market,
Tirupati.
18. P.Chandpasha,
S/o. P.Yoosoop Khan,
Hindu, aged 49 years,
Working at Shop No.59,
Indira Priyadarshni Vegetable Market,
Tirupati.
19. S.Ramana Reddy,
S/o. S.Venkat Reddy,
Hindu, aged 57 years,
R/at. Shop No.35,
Indira Priyadarshni Vegetable Market,
Tirupati.
20. A.Nagarathnamma,
W/o. A.Eswaraiah,
Hindu, aged 45 years,
R/at. Shop No.172,
Indira Priyadarshni Vegetable Market,
Tirupati.
21. K.Balaiah,
S/o. K.Ponnuswamy,
Hindu, aged 60 years,
R/at. Shop No.60,
Indira Priyadarshni Vegetable Market,
Tiruapti.
22. Javadi Pichamma,
W/o. J.Subba Rao,
Hindu, aged 65 years,
R/at. Shop No.77,
Indira Priyadarshni Vegetable Market,
Tirupati.
23. P.Yogananda,
S/o. P.Paneeer Selvam,
Hindu, aged 29 years,
R/at. Shop No.69,
Indira Priyadarshni Vegetable Market,
Tirupati.
24. R.Eswaraiah,
S/o. R.Kannappa Reddy,
Hindu, aged 36 years,
R/at. Shop No.60,
Indira Priyadarshni Vegetable Market,
Tirupati.
25. C.Nagaratnamma,
W/o. C.Ravi Kumar,
Hindu, aged 48 years,
Working at Shop No.59,
Indira Priyadarshni Vegetable Market,
Tirupati.
26. T.Lakshmi,
W/o. T.Srinivasulu,
Hindu, aged 52 years,
R/at. Shop No.28,
Indira Priyadarshni Vegetable Market,
Tirupati.
27. K.Jaya Rama Reddy,
S/o. K.Adi Narayana Reddy,
Hindu, aged 42 years,
R/at. Shop No.9,
Indira Priyadarshni Vegetable Market,
Tirupati.
28. S.kAshiq Hussain,
S/o. S.Hamadhussain,
Hindu, aged 41 years,
R/at. Shop No.83,
Indira Priyadarshni Vegetable Market,
Tirupati.
29. M.Mosesannadorai,
S/o. M.Muthaiahnada,
Hindu, aged 48 years,
R/at. A.P.Housing Board Colony,
F-W-S-H-13, K.T.Road,
Tirupati.
30. C.R.M.Prasad,
S/o. C.R.Ramaswamy,
Hindu, aged 40 years,
R/at. D.No.20-1-82/A, Abbanna Colony,
Tirupati.
31. C.Vinod Kumar Reddy,
S/o. C.Krishna Reddy,
Hindu, aged 22 years,
R/at. Shop No.66,
Indira Priyadarshni Vegetable Market,
Tirupati.
32. M.Ankaiah Naidu,
S/o. M.Venkatarama Naidu,
Hindu, aged 52 years,
R/at. D.No.20-2-624/D,
Korlagunta Maruthi Nagar,
Tirupati.
33. L.Murali,
S/o. L.Ranganatham Naidu,
Hindu, aged 30 years,
Working at Shop No.59,
Indira Priyadarshni Vegetable Market,
Tirupati.
34. P.Samiulla,
S/o. P. Chand Basha,
Hindu, aged 25 years,
R/at. Shop No.58,
Indira Priyadarshni Vegetable Market,
Tirupati.
35. B.Subramanyam,
S/o. B.Muniswamy,
Hindu, aged 40 years,
R/at. Shop No.49,
Indira Priyadarshni Vegetable Market,
Tirupati.
36. N.Chakravarthi,
S/o. N.Mohan Das,
Hindu, aged 28 years,
R/at. Melchur Village,
Chilamakur Post,
Balayapalli Mandal,
Nellore District.
37. P.Ravi Kumar,
S/o. P.Balaraju,
Hindu, aged 26 years,
R/at. 9-122/159, Chaitanyapuram,
Tirupati.
38. A.Ravi,
S/o. A.Dora Swamy Reddy,
Hindu, aged 41 years,
R/at. D.No.20-1-443/B, Sanjay Gandhi Colony,
Tirupati.
39. CH. Kameswari,
W/o. CH. Rathnam Naidu,
Hindu, aged 45 years,
R/at. D.No.18-2-85, Ashok Nagar,
Tirupati.
40. A.Ankaiah,
S/o. A.Anagaiah,
Hindu, aged 50 years,
R/at. D.No.151, Avilala Post and Village,
Tirupati Rural Mandal.
41. K.Nayani Reddy,
S/o. Ramaswami Reddy,
Hindu, aged 34 years,
R/at. Bandamidapalli,
Chinnagottigallu Mandal,
Chittoor District.
42. D.Pratap,
S/o. D.Ganganna,
Hindu, aged 26 years,
Working at Shop No.59,
Indira Priyadarshni Vegetable Market,
Tirupati.
43. K.Jayamma,
W/o. Armugham,
Hindu, aged 50 years,
Working at Shop No.59,
Indira Priyadarshni Vegetable Market,
Tirupati.
44. M.Nadhamuni Reddy,
S/o. Muniswamy Reddy,
Hindu, aged 55 years,
Working at Shop No.59,
Indira Priyadarshni Vegetable Market,
Tirupati.
45. B.Guravaiah,
S/o. B.Subramanyam,
Hindu, aged 58 years,
R/at. Shop No.66,
Indira Priyadarshni Vegetable Market,
Tirupati.
46. D.Ramesh Babu,
S/o. D.Yarraiah,
Hindu, aged 25 years,
Working at Shop No.59,
Indira Priyadarshni Vegetable Market,
Tirupati.
47. Mullpati Vennala,
D/o. Mullpati Munirathnam,
Hindu, aged 20 years,
R/at. D.No.3-48, S.N.Puram Road,
Tirupati.
48. S.Obulamma,
W/o. S.Yadagiri,
Hindu, aged 60 years,
Working at Shop No.59,
Indira Priyadarshni Vegetable Market,
Tirupati.
49. R.Pratap,
S/o. R.Bhaskar Reddy,
Hindu, aged 22 years,
Working at Shop No.59,
Indira Priyadarshni Vegetable Market,
Tirupati.
50. K.Murugan,
S/o. K.Kannappa,
Hindu, aged 35,
Working at Shop No.59,
Indira Priyadarshni Vegetable Market,
Tirupati.
51. P.Sambasiva Rao,
S/o. P.Venkateswarlu,
Hindu, aged 62 years,
Working at Shop No.59,
Indira Priyadarshni Vegetable Market,
Tirupati.
52. P.Subbamma,
W/o. P.Munaswamy,
Hindu, aged 60 years,
Working at Shop No.59,
Indira Priyadarshni Vegetable Market,
Tirupati.
53. C.Jayaram,
S/o. C.Subramanyam,
Hindu, aged 29 years,
Working at Shop No.59,
Indira Priyadarshni Vegetable Market,
Tirupati.
54. S.Masthan,
S/o. S.Jabbar,
Hindu, aged 50 years,
R/at. D.No.20-1-441,
Korlagunta, Maruthi Nagar,
Tirupati.
55. R.Jagannatham,
S/o. R.Ramachandran,
Hindu, aged 40 years,
R/at. D.No.165/A, Tirumala Nagar,
Mangalam,
Tirupati.
56. S.K.Abdul Azfer,
S/o. S.R.Abdul Kareem,
Hindu, aged 39 years,
R/at. D.No.12/795, Bugga Street,
Renigunta,
Tirupati.
57. S.Raja Reddy,
S/o. S.Balreddy,
Hindu, aged 46 years,
Working at Shop No.59,
Indira Priyadarshni Vegetable Market,
Tirupati.
58. B.Rajamma,
W/o. B.Muni Krishna Reddy,
Hindu, aged 65 years,
R/at. D.No.13-676, P.K.Layout,
Tirupati.
59. C.Subramanyam,
S/o. C.Balaguravaiah,
Hindu, aged 52 years,
Working at Shop No.59,
Indira Priyadarshni Vegetable Market,
Tirupati.
60. K.Sudhakara,
S/o. K.Ramachandraiah,
Hindu, aged 33 years,
Working at Shop No.59,
Indira Priyadarshni Vegetable Market,
Tirupati.
61. D.Devajulu,
S/o. G.Narayana Swami,
Hindu, aged 55 years,
Working at Shop No.59,
Indira Priyadarshni Vegetable Market,
Tirupati.
62. S.Abhirami,
Hindu, aged 39 years,
Working at Shop No.59,
Indira Priyadarshni Vegetable Market,
Tirupati.
63. B.Kumara Swamy,
S/o. B.Guravaiah,
Hindu, aged 23 years,
Working at Shop No.59,
Indira Priyadarshni Vegetable Market,
Tirupati.
64. K.Babu,
S/o. K.Papaiah,
Hindu, aged 34 years,
R/at. Shop No.59,
Indira Priyadarshni Vegetable Market,
Tirupati.
65. S.Nymatha Basha,
S/o. S.Sardhar,
Hindu, aged 21 years,
R/at. Shop No.93,
Indira Priyadarshni Vegetable Market,
Tirupati.
66. B.Munemma,
W/o. B.Chenchumuni Reddy,
Hindu, aged 55 years,
R/at. Shop No.9,
Indira Priyadarshni Vegetable Market,
Tirupati.
67. P.Yallappa,
S/o. P.Siddaiah,
Hindu, aged 28 years,
Working at Shop No.59,
Indira Priyadarshni Vegetable Market,
Tirupati.
68. C.Munikanthamma,
W/o. C.Muni Reddy,
Hindu, aged 50 years,
Working at Shop No.59,
Indira Priyadarshni Vegetable Market,
Tirupati.
69. A.Muni Reddy,
S/o. A.Muni Reddy,
Hindu, aged 52 years,
Working at Shop No.59,
Indira Priyadarshni Vegetable Market,
Tirupati. … Complainants.
And
1. M/s. VIGOR Venpro India Pvt. Ltd.,
Rep. by its Managing Director,
Having its registered office at Plot No.28 & 30,
1st Floor, Sikh Road,
Jupiter’s Colony,
Secunderabad.
2. Kakarlapudi Nagaraju,
R/at. D.No.23-33-17, Gatlurivari Street,
S.N.Puram,
Vijayawada,
Krishna District.
3. Pothuri Pawan Naga Kumar,
Hindu, aged 49 years,
R/at. Flat No.L112, Swarajya Arcade,
Hasmatpet Road,
Bowenpally,
Secunderabad.
4. Vaddi Balaji,
Hindu, aged about 55 years,
R/at. D.No.1/3/123, Railpet,
Bapatla,
Guntur District.
5. Madduri Venkatanarayana,
Hindu, aged 48 years,
R/at. 23, Santhi Nagar,
Rajukaalva,
Chodayapalem,
Guntur District.
6. Riaz Baig,
Aged about 45 years,
R/at. 3-122, Chandole,
P.V.Palem,
Guntur District.
7. C.H.S.V.Ramana,
Hindu, aged about 58 years,
R/at. Krishna Enclave,
Dukkipati Ramachandra Street,
Near Rainbow Hospital,
Karunya Nagar,
Viajaywada – 520 008.
8. Enduri Siva Reddy,
Hindu, aged 52 years,
R/at. Kuntapalli Village,
Sangaiam mandal,
Warangal District.
9. M.Lokanadha Reddy,
Hindu, aged 55 years,
R/at. Flat No.111, 1st Floor,
Viswasai Apartments,
Padipeta,
Tirupati. … Opposite parties.
This complaint coming on before us for final hearing on 17.01.17 and upon perusing the complaint, written version and other relevant material papers on record and on hearing Sri.D.Jayachandra, counsel for the complainants, and Sri.S.Raghuram, counsel for opposite party No.2, and Sri.N.Ravi Kumar, counsel for opposite parties 4 to 9, and opposite parties 1 and 3 remained exparte, and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Forum makes the following:-
ORDER
DELIVERED BY SRI. M.RAMAKRISHNAIAH, PRESIDENT
ON BEHALF OF THE BENCH
This complaint is filed under Section – 12 of C.P.Act 1986, by the complainants 1 to 69 against the opposite parties 1 to 9 for the following reliefs 1) to direct the opposite parties to return the amounts deposited by the complainants in a total sum of Rs.19,70,910/- with interest at 18% p.a. from the date of complaint till realization, 2) to direct the opposite parties to pay compensation of Rs.29,000/- for deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties, 3) to direct the opposite parties to pay the costs of the complaint and such other and further orders as the Hon’ble Forum deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
2. The averments of the complaint in brief are:- that some of the complainants are vegetable vendors in Indira Priyadarshni Vegetable Market, Tirupati, and other complainants are coolies under the vegetable vendors. One Yerra Venkateswarlu, is their authorized agent for prosecuting the complaint against opposite party No.1 company. Opposite parties 2 to 6 are the Directors and opposite parties 7 to 9 are incharge persons of opposite parties 1 to 6 at Tirupati.
3. The 1st opposite party has floated different schemes for purchasing / allotting plots from its proposed ventures, for which customers have to join as its members by opting any of such schemes and have to contribute amounts specified in the scheme daily to opposite party No.1, and after completion of the period of scheme / schemes, customers are entitled to take the plot or to get back the amount paid by them with interest. At the advise and motivation of the authorized agent of the complainants, all the complainants (69 in number) have joined as members of opposite party No.1, at its branch office at Tirupati, in Srinidhi project scheme through their authorized agent with different mode of payments, as per the schemes they opted.
4. That the 1st complainant has taken 2 memberships by agreeing to pay Rs.500/- per day. Complainants 3 to 14 have taken a single membership each by paying Rs.200/- each per day, 15th complainant has taken a single membership by paying Rs.150/- per day, complainants 16 to 43 have taken single membership each by paying Rs.100/- each per day, complainants 44 to 65 have taken single membership each by paying Rs.50/- each per day, complainants 66 to 67 have taken single membership each by paying Rs.30/- each per day, complainants 68 and 69 have taken single membership each by paying Rs.20/- per day. The particulars of the account numbers and the payments made by the complainants were detailed in a table form. The commencement of the scheme period starts from 30.03.2013 upto 10.03.2014 and from 18.04.2014 to 29.04.2016 with different dates as detailed in 4th document filed along with this complaint.
5. that after completion of duration of the schemes, the complainants approached the opposite parties to allot the plots as agreed, but the opposite parties postponing the matter on some pretext or other. Through their authorized agent, complainants demanded the opposite parties, but the opposite parties did not comply with their demands, and the opposite parties have closed their office at Tirupati in the month of May 2015. Thus, there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties, as they have collected amounts under different schemes they introduced and failed to comply with the terms they made to the complainants. Hence the complaint.
6. Opposite parties 1 and 3 remained exparte. Opposite parties 2, 4 to 9 have filed their written versions independently.
7. In the written version of opposite party No.2, he denied the complaint allegations parawise and further contended that he was appointed as Company Director on 18.07.2012, at that time opposite parties 1 and 3 used to maintain the branch at Tirupati. Opposite party No.1, who used to be the Managing Director, died on 12.04.2014. After the Board Directors Meeting on 15.10.2013, opposite party No.2 tendered his resignation on 11.12.2013 and submitted the same to opposite party No.1, who is the Managing Director of VIGOR Venpro India Pvt. Ltd. The same was also communicated to ROC on 24.07.2014. That opposite party No.2 issued NOC to opposite party No.3 for allotment of entire land on 30.07.2014. His resignation was dragged-on to accept and finally incorporated in the ROC (Register of Companies) record on 26.01.2014. The opposite party No.2 got concrete evidence for his non-involvement of misusing of remittances of the payments of the customers. Opposite party No.2 is in no way concerned with this transaction and he never issued any receipts and he never subscribed his signatures in any receipt. That opposite party No.2 issued NOC on 30.07.2014 to one Pavan Naga Kumar Pathuri (O.P.3) for delegation of powers even though he resigned from the company. He got relevant documents towards his resignation. He never deceived the customers. The complainants filed this case against him only to harass him and prays the Forum to dismiss the complaint against him with costs.
8. Opposite parties 4 to 9 filed their written versions independently denying parawise allegations in the complaint and opposite party No.4 further contended that he joined as Regional Manager in opposite party No.1 company, as per offer letter dt:23.06.2012 and he was promoted as Regional Manager (level-2) with effect from 01.08.2013 and on 20.05.2012 he was transferred to Davanagiri Karnataka State on 19.10.2013. He was promoted as Head of Sales and transferred to Head Office at Hyderabad. Opposite party No.1 did not pay his salary from October 2013 to April 2014 and there are other dues from opposite party No.1 to a tune of Rs.1,00,000/-, due to which he suffered a lot for his livelihood. Opposite party No.5 in his written version contended that he was appointed in opposite party No.1 company as Cluster Manager (level-1) on 02.07.2012 at Guntur branch, and on 09.07.2013 he was promoted as Regional Manager (level-1) by opposite party No.1. He suffered a lot for his livelihood as opposite party No.1 did not pay him salaries. Opposite party No.6 in his written version contended that he was joined as Cluster Manager (level-2) in opposite party No.1 company on 23.06.2012, subsequently he was transferred as Cluster Manager (Sales and Distribution), his salaries were not paid, as such he suffered a lot for his livelihood. Opposite party No.7 in his written version also denied parawise allegations in the complaint and further contended that he was appointed on 02.07.2012 as Cluster Manager (level-2), subsequently on 27.10.2012 opposite party No.1 promoted him as Cluster Manager (Sales) and on 09.07.2013 he was promoted as Regional Manager (level-1), opposite party No.1 did not pay him salaries, as such he suffered a lot for his livelihood. Opposite party No.8 in his written version denied parawise allegations in the complaint and contended that opposite party No.1 appointed him on 02.07.2012 as Cluster Manager (level-2) at Tirupati, subsequently he was promoted as Managing Director, but his salaries were not paid, as such he suffered a lot, and opposite party No.9 also in his written version denied parawise allegations of the complaint and further contended that he was appointed by the opposite party No.1 as an agent on 23.06.2012 at Tirupati, his salaries were not paid by opposite party No.1 and he suffered a lot for his livelihood.
9. Opposite parties 4 to 9 further contended that opposite party No.1 is only a company on paper and all its activities are like a fantasy, opposite parties 4 to 9 left the company as their salaries were not paid. That on enquiry opposite parties 4 to 9 came to know that the original Executive Directors are opposite parties 2 and 3, and A.Bhaskar and the Managing Director P.Gowry Sasibushan Srinivas are the founders and permanent Directors of the company and they invested an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- as their share capital divided into fifty thousand shares @ Rs.10/- per each share. Thus each of them got 12,500 shares. In their foul scheme to attract the innocent people they gave wide publicities and attractive schemes and offers and squeezed the public money. Due to heavy pressure from the public, the Managing Director of 1st respondent company i.e. P.Gowry Sasibushan Srinivas, committed suicide on 12.04.2014, and the other permanent Directors K.Nagaraju (O.P.2), P.Pavan Naga Kumar (O.P.3), and A.Bhaskar were absconded and their where abouts are not known.
10. That Yerra Venkateswarlu, alleged agent of complainants, who filed the present complaint, is a close associate of the said directors of opposite party No.1. That the said Venkateswarlu on his own, as the representative of opposite party No.1 used to collect the money from all the complainants. So, the complainants have to prove whether the money was remitted to opposite party No.1 company and whether the bonds issued were properly signed by the Managing Director of opposite party No.1, as the said representative Venkateswarlu got ample knowledge about the dealings, financial status and assets relating to opposite party No.1 company. That the said Venkateswarlu filed this complaint to cover-up his misappropriation and misdeeds. This complaint is filed against the opposite parties instead of proceeding against the assets of the opposite party No.1 company, and prays the Forum to dismiss the complaint against the opposite parties 4 to 9 with exemplary costs.
11. In support of the case of the complainants Yerra Venkateswarlu has filed his chief affidavit as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A32. For the opposite parties 2,4 to 9 have filed their respective evidence affidavits as R.W.1 to R.W.7 and got marked Exs.B1 to B5. Complainants and opposite parties 2, 4 to 9 have filed their respective written arguments.
12. Now the points for consideration are:-
(i). Whether the opposite parties 1 to 9 are liable to refund the amount paid by
the complainants?
(ii). Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties
1to 9?
(iii). Whether the complainants are entitled to the reliefs sought for?
(iv). To what relief?
13. Point No.(i):- To answer this point, the complainants have to prove that they are the customers / members of opposite party No.1 company, that the opposite parties 1 to 9 are the Directors or Managing Director’s or agents of the opposite party No.1 company, that they have deposited the amounts as shown in pages 8 and 9 of the complaint, that the opposite parties have received the said amounts from the complainants 1 to 69 either directly or by their agent for providing or selling the house plots / house sites and that in case of their failure the opposite parties have to refund the amounts collected from the complainants, and they also to prove that the opposite parties have failed to fulfill the promises made to its customers / complainants herein etc.
14. In support of their case, the complainants relied on Exs.A3, A4 and Exs.A9 to A32. The specific case of the complainants is that the opposite party No.1, and their Directors or Managing Director’s have offered the house sites / house plots for the complainants. In pursuance of the publicity made by the opposite parties, they have deposited the amounts shown in Ex.A3 and in pages 8 and 9 of the complaint against the names of each complainant. In order to prove this version Exs.A3 and A4 are sufficient documents to show that the complainants 1 to 69 have paid a total sum of Rs.18,91,880/-, out of the receipts under Exs.A9 to A32, according to which about 24 complainants viz. complainants 1, 4 to 9, 11, 19, 23, 27, 27, 31 to 35, 38, 46, 47, 51, 52, 66 and 69, have deposited the amounts with the opposite party No.1, as shown under Exs.A9 to A32, the remaining complainants, who were 45 in number, such as complainants 2, 3, 10, 12 to 18, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 30, 36, 37, 39 to 45, 48, 49, 50, 53 to 65, 67 and 68 could not file their receipts, but as per Ex.A3 they were also deposited the amounts as shown in Ex.A3 against each of these complainants. Thus all the complainants from 1 to 69 have deposited the total sum of Rs.18,91,880/- with the opposite parties through their agent Yerra Venkateswarlu, some of the complainants are vegetable vendors in Indira Priyadarshni Vegetable Market, Tirupati, and the remaining complainants are the workers under the vegetable vendors. Ex.A4 shows the details of the period of the scheme / schemes for which the complainants made the deposits. Those schemes were commenced from 30.01.2013 to 10.03.2014 and another scheme from 18.02.2014 to 29.04.2016. All the receipts under Exs.A9 to A32 were specifically signed by the opposite party No.1 i.e. Vigor Venpro India Pvt. Ltd., represented by its Managing Director. Thus the complainants have established their case that they have deposited the amounts with opposite party No.1 and the Directors / Managing Director’s received the said amounts from the complainants through their agent Yerra Venkateswarlu. All the complainants gave authorization to Yerra Venkateswarlu to present the complaint, to prosecute the complaint on behalf of the complainants, which was marked as Ex.A1.
15. Ex.B5 the Articles of Association, in which Memorandum of Association itself clearly shows the object of the company as follows – 1) to carry on the business of buying and selling farm land, farm houses, houses, land, open plots, flats, buildings or to carry on the business of agriculture or taken on lease or in exchange to develop the barren land, real estate, 2) to carry on the business of builders and contractors, land developers, and construct houses, resorts, flats, commercial complexes, farm houses, dwelling units and other immovable properties, 3) to carry on the business as real estate agent, estate agents on commission basis and estate managers and to collect rents and manage the immovable properties. Thus the objects of the company itself shows that they are doing real-estate business in buying and selling farm lands, farm houses, land, open plots, flats or to carry on the business of agriculture or taken on lease or in exchange to develop the barren land. By the date of Articles of Association, the Executive Directors of the company are i) Mr.Nagaraju Kakarlapudi – opposite party No.2, ii) Mr.Pawan Naga Kumar Pothuri – opposite party No.3, iii) Mr.Gowri Sasibhushan Srinivas Pakki and Mr.Bhaskar Akauaram. The first directors shall be permanent directors for life and they shall hold office until they resign on their own accord. So, the above said four persons including opposite parties 2 and 3 are the Directors and permanent Directors of opposite party No.1 Company. Under the guise of management, the opposite party No.1 has commenced business in Tirupati also, apart from other places like Guntur, Hyderabad etc. For the reasons best known Ex.B5 did not disclose the liabilities of the Managing Director or the Directors of the Company, and the Company, in case of their failure to fulfill the objectives of the Company or the promises made to its customers like the complainants 1 to 69.
16. Out of the complainants, the 1st complainant has taken 2 memberships that is why the name of the 1st complainant C.Girijamma was mentioned in the list of complainants in Ex.A3 twice. The complainants 7 to 14 have taken single membership each by paying Rs.200/- per each day. The 1st complainant also paid Rs.500/- per day per each membership. 15th complainant has taken single membership by paying Rs.100/- per day. Complainants 16 to 43 have taken single memberships each by paying Rs.100/- per day . Complainants 44 to 65 have taken single membership each by paying Rs.50/- each per day. Complainants 66 and 67 have taken single membership each by paying Rs.30/- each per day. Then the complainants 68 and 69 have taken single membership each by paying Rs.20/- per day. Thus they have made payments in their respective schemes as shown in Ex.A3 and A4 issued by the opposite parties in favour of the complainants. The complainant’s allegation is that after completion of the period of the scheme, they approached the opposite parties and demanded either to allot plots or to refund the amounts, but they paid deaf ear and postponed the matter on some pretext or the other, as such the complainants 1 to 69 were forced to file the complaint.
17. Opposite parties 1 and 3 remained exparte.
18. Opposite parties 2, 4 to 9 have filed their written versions independently. In the written version of opposite party No.2, though he denied the allegations parawise further contended that he was appointed as Company Director on 18.07.2012, at that time opposite parties 1 to 3 used to maintain the branch at Tirupati. Opposite party No.1, who used to be the Managing Director died on 12.04.2014. This version itself is prima facie false on the ground that opposite party No.1 is the Company, perhaps its Managing Director might have died. Opposite party No.2 further contended that after the Board Directors Meeting on 15.10.2013, he tendered resignation on 11.12.2013 and submitted his resignation letter to the Managing Director of opposite party No.1. It was communicated to ROC (Register of Companies) on 26.01.2014, that opposite party No.2 has got concrete evidence for non-involvement, mis-management of remittance of payments of the customers, that he contended that he is in no way concerned with the transaction and he never issued any receipts and he never subscribed his signature on the receipts, that opposite party No.2 issued NOC on 30.07.2014 to Pavan Naga Kumar Pathuri (O.P.3) for delegation of powers even though he resigned from the company, which itself falsify the statement of opposite party No.2 on the ground that when he resigned from the company and when his resignation was sent to ROC on 26.01.2014, how he can issue NOC on 30.07.2014 for delegating powers in favour of Pavan Naga Kumar Pathuri (O.P.3), issuance of NOC on 30.07.2014 itself shows that opposite party No.2 was in service under opposite party No.1 up to 30.07.2014. By saying he has tendered his resignation on 11.12.2013 opposite party No.2 seems to disown his liability in respect of the complainants.
19. Likewise opposite party No.4 Vaddi Balaji in his written version denied parawise allegations in the complaint and further contended that he joined as Regional Manager in opposite party No.1 as per offer letter dt:23.06.2012 issued by opposite party No.1 and he was promoted as Regional Manager (level-2) with effect from 01.08.2013 and on 20.05.2012 he has transferred to Davanagiri, Karnataka State on 19.10.2013. He was promoted as Head of Sales and transferred to Head Office at Hyderabad. This statement also appears to be false on the ground that when he was appointed as Regional Manager, as per offer letter dt:23.06.2012, how he was transferred to Davanagiri on 20.05.2012 i.e. one month before his appointment as Regional Manager. He also got promotion as Regional Manager (level-2) with effect from 01.08.2013 i.e. within a year and he got promoted as Head of Sales on 19.10.2013 within two months from the earlier promotion. However, he further contended that his salaries were not paid by opposite party No.1 from October 2013 to April 2014.
20. Similarly, opposite party No.5 Madduri Venkata Narayana, in his written version denied the complaint allegations parawise and further contended that he was appointed in opposite party No.1 company as a Cluster Manager (level-1) on 02.07.2012 at Guntur branch, and on 09.07.2013 he was promoted as Regional Manager (level-1) by opposite party No.1. He further contended that his salaries were also not paid by opposite party No.1 and he suffered a lot for his livelihood.
21. Opposite party No.6, Riaz Baig also in his written version denied parawise allegations in the complaint and further contended that he was appointed in opposite party No.1 company on 23.06.2012 as Cluster Manager (level-2). Subsequently, he was transferred as Cluster Manager (Sales & Distribution). His salaries were also not paid by opposite party No.1.
22. Similarly, opposite party No.7 C.H.S.V.Ramana also in his written version denied parawise allegations of the complaint and further contended that he was appointed on 02.07.2012 as Cluster Manager (level-2). Subsequently, on 27.10.2012 he was promoted as Cluster Manager (Sales), and on 09.07.2013 he was promoted as Regional Manager (level-1) and the opposite party No.1 did not pay salaries and he suffered a lot for his livelihood.
23. Opposite party No.8 Enduri Siva Reddy also in his written version denied the complaint allegations and further contended that he was appointed by opposite party No.1 on 02.07.2012 as Cluster Manager (level-2) at Tirupati. Subsequently, he was promoted as Managing Director. His salaries were also not paid by the opposite party No.1.
24. Similarly, opposite party No.9 M.Lokanadha Reddy also denied the complaint allegations and further contended that he was appointed as an agent by opposite party No.1 on 23.06.2012 at Tirupati. His salaries were also not paid by opposite party No.1, as such he was also made to suffer for his livelihood.
25. Opposite parties 4 to 9 unanimously stated in their written versions that opposite party No.1 is only a company on paper, its activities are like fantasy. So, opposite party No.4 in his written version further contended that he left the company as his salaries were not paid, but failed to mention when he left the company of opposite party No.1 and whether he resigned for his post in opposite party No.1 or left the company without intimation etc. He further contended in his written version that on his enquiry opposite party No.4 came to know that the original Executive Directors i.e. opposite parties 2 and 3 A.Bhaskar and the Managing Director P.Gowry Sasibhushan Srinivas, are the founders and permanent Directors of the Company, that they have invested an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- as their share capital and it was divided into fifty thousand shares @ Rs.10/- per each share, thus each of the above Directors got 12,500 shares each. Opposite parties 5 to 9 did not mention whether they are still working in opposite party No.1 company or not. So, it appears that opposite parties 2 to 9 are simply trying to escape from their liability.
26. The Directors, Managing Director’s or life time Directors of the company and its agents, if committed any sort of mismanagement, misuse of funds of the company or misuse of funds of their customers, then they are personally and jointly and severally liable for such misdeeds. The company has to bear the liability for the misdeeds or misacts done by its Managing Director’s, Directors or Agents or Managers etc. No where it is mentioned in Articles of Association or Memorandum of Association under Ex.B5 about the qualifications of the Directors, permanent Directors or Managing Director’s etc. and also the Managers and Cluster Managers level -1 and level-2, and Regional Managers level-1 and level-2 etc., so as to give promotions for them within 3 or 4 months after their appointment or within one year after their appointment, as alleged by the opposite parties in their written version and their chief affidavits as well. Suspicion on their qualifications and promotions, were left on the company. They are responsible for the amounts collected from the customers, such as complainants 1 to 69 herein. The complainants by virtue of filing the complaint, showing the names of complainants schemes and the amounts paid by each of the complainant in pages 8 and 9 of the complaint and also as detailed in Exs.A3 and A4, which were issued by opposite parties in favour of the complainants and by virtue of Exs.A9 to A32, the complainants have established that they are the customers of opposite party No.1 company and their agent collected the amounts as shown in Ex.A3 for the schemes as shown in Ex.A4, and their agent deposited the amounts with opposite party No.1 company. It is also further established that the opposite parties have failed to comply with the promises made to above customers i.e. complainants 1 to 69 and one another person by name S.Ashiq Hussain, whose name was found in S.No.56 of Ex.A3, who deposited a sum of Rs.28,200/- under account No.10160000902. According to Exs.A3 and A4, the total number of customers are 71. As per the complaint, the total number of complainants are 69. In Exs.A3 and A4, the name of C.Girijamma, 1st complainant was cited twice, as she purchased 2 memberships, that S.Ashiq Hussain is another one. Thus, total number of customers of opposite party No.1 comes to 71 as shown in Exs.A3 and A4. Under the above circumstances, we are of the opinion that complainants 1 to 69 have established that they have deposited the amounts as shown in Ex.A3 and they are entitled to get refund those amounts, and the opposite parties 1 to 9 are jointly and severally liable to pay the said amounts to the complainants. Accordingly, this point is answered.
27. Point No.(ii):- in order to answer this point, as discussed in point No.1, the opposite parties have collected the amounts from the complainants by the Directors of opposite party No.1 through their agent on behalf of opposite party No.1 company and the said amounts were deposited with opposite party No.1 company according to their own documents issued in favour of the complainants under Exs.A3 and A4, but the opposite parties after completion of the period of the schemes in which complainants are customers and purchased memberships as detailed above, failed either to allot the plots / flats or to refund the amounts, so deposited by the complainants. The activities of the opposite party No.1 company appears to be unfair trade practice as defined under Section-2(1)(r) of the C.P.Act 1986.
“the word unfair trade practice means:-
a trade practice which, for the purpose of promoting the sale, use or supply of any goods or for the provision of any service, adopts any unfair method or unfair or deceptive practice including any of the following practices, namely:
(1) the practice of making any statement, whether orally or in writing or by visible representation which, -
(i) falsely represents that the goods are of a particular standard, quality, quantity, grade, composition, style or model;
(ii) falsely represents that the services are of a particular standard, quality or grade;
(iii) falsely represents any re-built, second-hand, renovated, re-conditioned or old goods as new goods;
(iv) represents that the goods or services have sponsorship, approval performance, characteristics, accessories, uses or benefits which such goods or services do not have;
(v) represents that the seller or the supplier has a sponsorship or approval or affiliation which such seller or supplier does not have;
(vi) makes a false misleading representation concerning the need for, or the usefulness of, any goods or services;
(vii) gives to the public any warranty or guarantee of the performance, efficacy or length of life of a product or of any goods that is not based on an adequate or proper test thereof:
Provided that materially misleads the public concerning the price at which a product or like products or goods or services, have been or are, ordinarily sold or provided, and, for this purpose, a representation as to price shall be deemed to refer to the price at which the product or goods or services has or have been sold by sellers or provided by suppliers generally in the relevant market unless it is clearly specified to be the price at which the product has been sold or services have been provided by the person by whom or on whose behalf the representation is made;
Likewise there is also deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties as defined under Section-2(1)(g) of C.P.Act 1986 in which the word deficiency is being defined as:
“deficiency means any fault, imperfection, short coming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service”.
28. In the case on hand, Ex.A1 Vigor Group Field Member Manual itself shows the promises made to the public and benefits for the members of the company. When the complainants 1 to 69 joined as members of the company and subscribed amounts as shown under Ex.A3, for which the opposite parties have issued receipts in favour of some of the complainants as shown under Exs.A9 to A32, and also mentioned in the list of complainants about the amounts deposited by the remaining complainants as shown in Ex.A3. The opposite parties have failed to fulfill their promises to the customers and they also failed to provide the benefits to its customers / members or even to refund their amounts deposited. Thus, there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and it was thoroughly established by the complainants. Accordingly, this point is answered.
29. Point No.(iii):- in view of our holding on points 1 and 2 and in view of the contents of the affidavits of P.W.1 and R.W.1 to 7 in which it was found that P.Gowry Sisibushan Srinivas, being the Managing Director of opposite party No.1, when the public pressurized the company for refund of the amounts they deposited, had committed suicide. In the arguments, the learned counsel for the opposite parties raised an objection that Yeera Venkateswarlu, agent of the complainants has collected the amounts on behalf of the company, as he happens to be the close associate of the then Managing Director, misappropriated the amounts, as such Yerra Venkateswarlu, cannot be allowed to be the agent of the complainants. The opposite parties failed to file any scrap of paper to prove that Yerra Venkateswarlu has misappropriated the amounts collected from the complainants or any part thereof. In this regard the learned counsel for the complainants relied on a decision reported in CDJ 2003 (Cons.) Case No.105 (NC) – Voluntary Organization In Interest of Consumer Education (Voice) Vs. Registrar, Tamil Naidu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, and also in a decision reported in CDJ 2011 SC 826 – C.Venkatachalam and Another Vs.Ajitkumar C. Shah and others, in which their Lordships held that in case the parties choose competent persons to act as an agent and they perform well, it will not only promote the object of the 1986 Act and the rules frames thereunder but also provide healthy competition to the advocates, it violates no provision of the Advocates Act 1961 or any other law. Hence, permission can be granted to the agent to represent the parties on their behalf. In another decision reported in CDJ 2013(Cons.) 454 (NC) – M/s. Destiny Overseas Pvt. Ltd Vs. Davender Prashad Singh and Another, in which it was held that Abroad Employment and Immigration, petitioner promised the complainant (R1) and his family Australian Immigration, petitioner is working under respondent No.2 company, petitioner and respondent No.2 issued receipt for Rs.15,000/-. The complainant further deposited Rs.3,50,000/-, the petitioner left the services of respondent No.2, complainant could not get any reply from them, complainant claims refund of Rs.3,78,000/-, respondent No.2 submits that petitioner never worked under them, the District Forum allowed the complaint, State Commission confirmed the order of the District Forum, National Commission dismissed the RP with costs of Rs.25,000/- holding that vicarious liability was on company (R2).
In this case also whether opposite party No.2 or opposite party No.4, left the opposite party No.1 company or not, they are also liable to refund the amounts and the company is also having vicarious liability. In view of all the above facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the complainants have established their case and they are entitled to the reliefs of refund of the amounts so deposited by them and also they are entitled to compensation and costs of the complaint, and accordingly complaint is to be allowed.
30. in view of our discussion on points 1 to 3, we are of the opinion that the complainants have established that the opposite parties have collected a total sum of Rs.18,91,880/- from the complainants, as shown in Ex.A3, which was duly supported by Exs.A9 to A32, and the complainants are entitled to refund of their respective amounts with interest and compensation as well as costs, and accordingly complaint is to be allowed.
In the result, complaint is allowed in part directing the opposite parties 1 to 9 jointly and severally to refund the amounts in a total sum of Rs.18,91,880/- (Rupees eighteen lakhs ninety one thousand eight hundred and eighty only) with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of complaint, till realization in proportionate of the amounts deposited by the complainants 1 to 69 respectively. That the opposite parties also directed to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) and also costs of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only), and opposite parties 1 to 9 are further directed to comply with the orders within six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the compensation amount of Rs.10,000/- shall also carry interest at 9% p.a. from the date of this order, till realization. The complainants are at liberty to proceed against the opposite parties individually or against the assets of opposite party No.1 company, to realize the amounts, in case the opposite parties failed to comply with the orders within the stipulated period.
Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Forum this the 27th day of January, 2017.
Sd/- Sd/-
Lady Member President
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF COMPLAINANT/s
PW-1: Yerra Venkateswarlu (Chief Affidavit filed).
WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF OPPOSITE PARTY/s
RW-1: Kakarlapudi Nagaraju (Chief Affidavit filed).
RW-2: Vaddi Balaji (Chief Affidavit filed).
RW-3: M.Venkatanarayana (Chief Affidavit filed).
RW-4: Riyaz (Chief Affidavit filed).
RW-5: C.H.S.V.Ramana (Chief Affidavit filed).
RW-6: E.Siva Reddy (Chief Affidavit filed).
RW-7: M.Lokanadha Reddy (Chief Affidavit filed).
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT/s
Exhibits (Ex.A) | Description of Documents |
Authorization given by the complainants to Yerra Venkateswarlu S/o. Pandurangam. Dt: 20.03.2015. | |
Details of the scheme announced by the 1st opposite party. | |
Customer Deposits list issued by the 1st opposite party. | |
Customer Scheme Periods issued by the 1st opposite party. | |
Certified true copies of M/s. VIGOR VENPRO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (U70102TG2012PTC081509) of Form No.32 and abd Dir-11, Certified by Deputy Registrar of Companies, Andhra Pradesh and Telangana, Hyderabad. Dt: 25.04.2016. | |
Certified true copies of M/s. VIGOR VENPRO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (U70102TG2012PTC081509) of Form No.32 and abd Dir-11, Certified by Deputy Registrar of Companies, Andhra Pradesh and Telangana, Hyderabad. Dt: 25.04.2016. | |
Certified true copies of M/s. VIGOR VENPRO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (U70102TG2012PTC081509) of Form No.Dir-12, Certified by Deputy Registrar of Companies, Andhra Pradesh and Telangana, Hyderabad. Dt: 25.04.2016. | |
Certified true copies of M/s. VIGOR VENPRO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (U70102TG2012PTC081509) of “Evidence of Cessation, Optional Attachment and Declaration of the appointee Director, Certified by Deputy Registrar of companies, Andhra Pradesh and Telangana, Hyderabad. Dt: 25.04.2016. | |
Original Receipts (31 in Number) in favour of complainant No.1. | |
Original Receipts (13 in Number) in favour of complainant No.4. | |
Original Receipts (03 in Number) in favour of complainant No.5. | |
Original Receipts (01 in Number) in favour of complainant No.8. | |
Original Receipts (03 in Number) in favour of complainant No.4. | |
Original Receipts (20 in Number) in favour of complainant No.9. | |
Original Receipts (13 in Number) in favour of complainant No.11. | |
Original Receipts (30 in Number) in favour of complainant No.19. | |
Original Receipts (01 in Number) in favour of complainant No.23. | |
Original Receipts (06 in Number) in favour of complainant No.27. | |
Original Receipts (01 in Number) in favour of complainant No.29. | |
Original Receipts (15 in Number) in favour of complainant No.31. | |
Original Receipts (01 in Number) in favour of complainant No.32. | |
Original Receipts (08 in Number) in favour of complainant No.33. | |
Original Receipts (06 in Number) in favour of complainant No.34. | |
Original Receipts (24 in Number) in favour of complainant No.35. | |
Original Receipts (01 in Number) in favour of complainant No.38. | |
Original Receipts (06 in Number) in favour of complainant No.46. | |
Original Receipts (06 in Number) in favour of complainant No.47. | |
Original Receipts (04 in Number) in favour of complainant No.51. | |
Original Receipts (11 in Number) in favour of complainant No.52. | |
Original Receipts (03 in Number) in favour of complainant No.58. | |
Original Receipts (06 in Number) in favour of complainant No.66. | |
Original Receipts (04 in Number) in favour of complainant No.69. |
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY/s
Exhibits (Ex.B) | Description of Documents |
Resignation Letter of K. Naga Raju, Director. Dt: 11.12.2013. | |
Registration extract of Registered Sale Deed executed by G. Venkata Varaprasad Gupta in favour of the 1st opposite party Vide Doc. No.880/2013 filed on behalf of the Opposite parties No.4 to 9. Dt: 25.03.2013. | |
Registration extract of Registered Sale Deed executed by A. Ramajyothi in favour of the 1st opposite party vide Doc. No. 877/2013 filed on behalf of the Opposite parties No. 4 to 9. Dt: 25.03.2013. | |
Registration extract of Registered Sale Deed executed by G. Kalavathi in favour of the 1st opposite party vide Doc. No. 879/2013 filed on behalf of the Opposite parties No. 4 to 9. Dt: 25.03.2013. | |
Attested copy of 1st Opposite party No.1, Company articles of association issued by the ROC filed on behalf of the Opposite parties No. 4 to 9. Dt: 17.11.2016. |
Sd/-
President
// TRUE COPY //
// BY ORDER //
Head Clerk/Sheristadar,
Dist. Consumer Forum-II, Tirupati.
Copies to:- 1. Sri.Yerra Venkateswarlu – Authorized agent for complainants.
2. The opposite parties.
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.
Bhanu Pratap
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)
Bhanu Pratap
Featured RecomendedHighly recommended!
Experties
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Phone Number
7982270319
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.