KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL:1061/2000 JUDGMENT DATED.2..8..2008 PRESENT JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER 1.K.P.Narasimhan, Flat No:4, Block – C, Shanti Apartments, 21, T.T.K.Road, 1st Cross Street, Madras-600 018. 2.F.Dadabhoy, 13, 1st street, Subha Rao Avenue, : APPELLANTS Madras-600 006. 3.P.K.Kurian, M/S Menon & Pai, Advocates, I.S.Press Road, Ernakulam, Cochin-682 018. (By Adv:M/S Menon & Pai) V. 1.N.C.Balan, Pharmacist, T.C.8/50, LIC Lane P.O, Tirumala, Near Vijayamohini Mills, Thiruvananthapuram-6. 2.Y.G.Raajendraa, 14C, North Crescent Road, T.Nagar, Madras – 600 017. 3.S.Venkataraman, 48, Chamiers Road, : RESPONDENTS Madras-600 028. 4.M/S Synergy Financial Exchange Ltd., Repd. by its Board of Directors. 5.Whole Time Director of M/S Synergy Financial Exchange Ltd., For and on behalf of Board of Directors. 6.M/S Bajaj Capital Investment Centre Ltd., Flat No:2 Lukes Lane, Ambujavilasam Road, TVPM. JUDGMENT JUSTICE K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties 1 to 3 in OP:202/99 in the file of CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram. The opposite parties 8 in number including the appellants have been made jointly and severally liable for an amount of Rs.12,141/- with interest at 16% from 15..2..1998 till realization and to pay Rs.1000/- as cost. 2. It is the case of the complainant that he deposited Rs.10,000/- with the 6th opposite party/M/S Synergy Financial Exchange Limited. The deposit matured on 15..2..1998. The fixed deposit receipt was surrendered with the 8th opposite party/M/S Bajaj Capital Investment Centre Limited, but the amount remains unpaid. The complainant approached the Company Law Board but nothing could be heard from them also. 3. The opposite parties 1 to 3 had denied any liability. 4. The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PW1 and Exts.P1 to P10. 5. We find that no personal liability against the appellants have been alleged in the complaint. It is also not mentioned in what capacity the above opposite parties have been implicated. It appears from the documents produced ie, Exts.P2, P5 and P8 that the complainant has approached the company law board. It is the case of the appellant who have filed version denying the liability that in the case of a company, the directors cannot be held personally liable. Although the appellants have not mentioned anything as to their relationship with R6 and R8 Companies it is represented by the counsel for the appellant that the appellants are only honorary directors. It is pointed out that it is evident from the testimony of PW1 and the documents produced that R6 and R8 are Companies. If so there can be no personal liability. In the circumstances we find that the appellants cannot be held personally liable. Hence the order of the Forum against appellants 1 to 3 is set aside. The appeal is allowed. JUSTICE K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER VL.
......................JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU
......................SMT.VALSALA SARNGADHARAN | | 
