KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSALCOMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
APPEAL 894/04
JUDGMENT DATED. 26.3.2011
PRESENT:-
SHRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER
SHRI. M.K. ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER
APPELLANTS
1. Mohandas, S/o K. Radha Balakrishnan,
Krishna Vihar, P.O. Pengamukku,
Thrissur – 680 544
2. N.A. Balan, S/o Ayyappan,
Njamanengad Veedu,
Njamanengad P.O.,
Kunnamkulam Via,
Thrissur District
(Rep. by Adv.Arunkumar Kaimal.)
Vs
RESPONDENTS
1. P.M. Radha, W/o C.R. Vasu,
Geetha Nivas, Konchery Road,
Mulamkunnathkavu P.O.
Thrissur – 680 581.
2. Managing Partner,
The Waltham Properties & Investments,
21/460/9, 2nd Floor,
Nanu Ezhuthachan Bldg., West Fort,
Thrissur.
3. Ramanathan,
S/o Krishnayyer, Sreeja Nivas, Manathitta
Temple Road, Ayyanthole, P.O., Thrissur-3
4. K.V. Sajan,
S/o K.C.Velayudhan,
Krishna Vihar, Pengamukku P.O.,
Thrissur – 680 542.
5. A.P. Ummer, S/o Late Hydru,
Avittam, Andathodu P.O.,
Punnayurkulam, Thrissur
6. P.K. Arunkumar, S/o Kumaran,
Panikkassery veedu,
Punnayurkkulam, Thrissur
7. K. I Manoj, S/o A Ippunni,
Kollannur House, Pengamukku,
Thrissur.
8. K.K. Shajahan, S/o K.M. Kunjumon,
Kuruppanveettil House,
Thuvannur, Kecheri P.O.
Thrissur.
9. P. Balan, S/o Pankukutty, Mannanthara House P.O.,
Thrissur District, P.O. Orumanayur.
10. K. Gopalakrishnan, S/oKrishna Kuru,
Kottarathuveedu,Ayyanthole P.O.,
Thrissur.
11. Mrs. Bindu Manikandan, W/o K.B. Manikandan,
Krishnavihar,Pengamukku P.O., Thrissur.
12. M.M. Benni, S/o Maani,
Manannur House, Alathur Desom,
Chittanjur P.O., Thrissur.
( R1 Rep. by Adv.Krishnaprasad.S)
JUDGMENT
SHRI. M.K. ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER
This appeal prefers from the order passed by the CDRF, Trissur in O.P. No. 1177/98 dated 24.9.2004. The appellants are the opposite party No. 2 and opposite party No. 3 respectively in the O.P. The respondent is the complainant and O.P. No. 1 for 2 to 13 respectively. The appellants prefers this appeal under the direction of the Forum below that directed opposite parties 1 to 5 , 7 to 10 and 12 and 13 are directed to pay to the petitioner Rs. 30,000/- with interest @12% per annum from 27.10.96 till realization, and Rs. 1,000/- as cost.
The brief of the complaint is that the first respondent/complainant filed a complaint before the CDRF, Trissur stating that she had deposited Rs. 30,000/- at the first opposite party’s concern and that the other opposite parties are its partners. This deposit was deposited on 28.10.95 for one year period. The opposite parties promised to pay 24% interest per annum. After one year the complainant demanded back the amount but the opposite parties requested for six months time. After this period the complainant again approached the opposite parties then and so they asked for 6 months further time. The opposite parties did not give the amount and therefore the opposite parties are liable for to pay Rs. 30,000/- with interest 24% and compensation of Rs. 5,000/-
The second and third opposite parties filed their version and contended that they are not the partners. They contended that they were only employees of this concern. They also contended that the complaint is barred by limitation. But the Forum below considered all the evidence from both sides and taken a view that all opposite parties are liable to pay the deposited amount as the opposite parties failed to prove that they are the partners of the partnership concern.
The evidence consist of Ext. P1 to P4 and Ext. 11. The Ext. 11 is a Rent Agreement. The complainant cited a witness and he examined as Pw1. There is no evidence adduced by the all opposite parties. There was an order passed by the very same Forum on 30.7.99. But an appeal was preferred the State Commission demanded this appeal to the Forum below for fresh disposal. The Forum below passed an order as per the direction of the judgment in that appeal.
On this day this appeal came before this Commission for final hearing. The counsel for the appellant submitted that the order passed by the Forum below did not appreciate the Ext. 11 document. Hence they prayed for allowing this appeal and to set aside the order passed by the Forum. The Counsel for the appellant argued in detail on the strength of the grounds of appeal memorandum. We perused the entire evidence and facts and circumstances of the case. There is no representation for the respondent. We are seeing that these appellants are liable to pay the amount. The order passed by the Forum below is legally sustainable and accordance with the provisions of law and evidence, there is no doubt that this appeal is nothing but to prolong the payment of the deposit amount to the complainant. It has abused the process of justice.
In the result, this appeal is dismissed and confirmed the order passed by the Forum below. No cost ordered. The points of the appeal discussed one by one and answered accordingly.
M.K. ABDULLA SONA ; MEMBER
M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER
ST
