O R D E R

Sri. P. Satheesh Chandran Nair (President):

                      The complainant filed this petition u/s.12 of the C.P. Act 1986 for getting a relief from the opposite parties.

                   2. The case of the complainant is stated as follows:  The complainant is a subscriber of a chitty scheme by the opposite parties and the 1^st opposite party is the partner to the firm bearing name and style, ‘Mannil Finance’ at Vadakkeveedu, KSRTC Road, Pathanamthitta.  According to the complainant, the husband of the 1^st opposite party was the managing partner of this firm, he who committed suicide and thereafter the 1^st opposite party has managing the firm.  He further stated that he deposited Rs.1,64,000/- with the firm and after the demise of the 1^st opposite party’s husband the opposite parties were not replying any queries or no collection has also taken from the complainant.  It is further stated that the complainant personally approached the 1^st opposite party on several times and inform his disinterest to continue further at the said scheme but 1^st opposite party has threatening the complainant with dire consequences and was not ready to refund the amount collected as deposited.  The complainant issued a legal notice to the 1^st opposite party on 04.11.2014 but even after the acceptance of this letter opposite party failed to redress the grievances of the complainant.  According to the complainant, all the above act of the opposite party is clear demonstration or unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.  Hence the complainant filed this complaint before this Forum for directing the opposite party to refund the collected amount of Rs.1,64,000/-, compensation etc. etc.

                   3. This Forum entertained this complaint and issue notice to the opposite parties for their appearance.  The opposite party 1 and 2 entered appearance and filed their version as follows:  According to them, the case is not maintainable either in law or on facts.  It is further contended that the 1^st opposite party was not a partner to the 2^nd opposite party and the firm is a sole proprietorship firm and run by her husband the deceased Somarajan.  The said Somarajan committed suicide on 22.09.2014 due to financial crisis in running his establishment.  It is again contended that the 1^st opposite party is a teacher who is working at Mount Bethany School, Kumbazha for the last 20 years.  According to this contesting opposite parties due to the unexpected introduction of the Central Chits laws in Kerala with the registration department on the Rules and Regulations of the new loss the running of the chits became difficult.   So that the above said Somarajan opted to carry parallel business by starting the finance under the name and style of ‘Mannil Finance’.  It is contended that the Kubera operations of the state government also affected the financial transaction of the above said Somarajan.  As a result, so many customers were made default on the payment and the financial strategy collapsed and it all are resulted the suicide of the said Somarajan.  It is also contended that 1^st opposite party is a silent partner of this business and he has no knowledge with regard to the affairs of the firm.  On 01.10.2014 the Pathanamthitta Police registered a case against the firm u/s.406, 409, 420 IPC and subsequently the Pathanamthitta police directed to close this financial establishment.  It is further contended that this opposite party has no direct knowledge about this complainant and at present so many cases are pending before Munsiff’s and Sub Court of Pathanamhitta against her and minor children.  Hence she wants sufficient time to pursue all the matters.  She further contended that she is not personally liable to any of the transaction run by 2^nd opposite party and at present her properties have been attached, she and her minor children are living from the mere income from the management school.

                   4. We peruse the complaint, version and records before us, we framed the following issues for consideration:

1. Whether this case is maintainable before the Forum?
2. Whether the opposite parties committed any deficiency in service against the complainant?
3. Regarding relief and costs?

                   5. In order to prove the case of the complainant, the complainant filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and examined as PW1 and marked Ext.A1 to A4.  Ext.A1 is the legal notice dated 04.11.2014 sent by complainant’s counsel to 1^st opposite party.  Ext.A2 is the postal receipt of Ext.A1.  Ext.A3 is the Postal acknowledgment card of Ext.A1. Ext.A4 is the photocopy of chitty pass book.  When we peruse the chief examination of the complainant it reveals that he deposed in the proof affidavit more or less as per the tune of his complaint.  Even at the time of chief examination either the opposite party or the opposite party’s counsel were absent hence this Forum gives so many posting for the opposite party’s for contesting the case.  At last on 18.04.2016 this Forum issue notices to the opposite party for appearance.  Though the opposite party received the notice of this Forum the opposite party did not turn up for any further proceedings of this case.  At last we heard the counsel for the complainant and case posted for orders.

                   6. Point No.1:- The opposite party through their version it is contended that the case is not maintainable before this Forum.  In order to substantiate their contention the opposite party has not raised any material objection before us.  Moreover, it is to see that through Ext.A4 it is proved that 2^nd opposite party has received an amount of Rs.1,64,000/- from the complainant.  The genuineness of Ext.A4 or with regard to the entry of amount no dispute was raised by the opposite parties in this case.  Hence we can safely arrived to the fact that the complainant is a consumer of the opposite party and the opposite parties are service providers.  So the case is maintainable before the Forum and Point No.1 found in favour of the complainant.

                   7. Point Nos.2 & 3:-  For the sake of convenience, we would like to consider Point No.2 and 3 together.  As already discussed earlier, it is revealed that the complainant is a subscriber of 2^nd opposite party and as per Ext.A4, he has remitted an amount of Rs.1,64,000/- to the 2^nd opposite party.  As per Ext.A4 it is also reveals that the above said scheme commenced on 03.04.2014 and its termination is on 03.04.2015.  When we peruse the version given by the 1^st and 2^nd opposite party it is so evident to see that 1^st and 2^nd opposite party had admitted that 2^nd opposite party is a financial establishment and the complainant is a customer of that establishment.  Another question to be considered is whether the amount of Rs.1,64,000/- is accepted by the opposite party as alleged by the complainant.  Here also, we have to rely the version submitted by 1^st and 2^nd opposite party for a final conclusion.  Anywhere in the version we could not see any specific denial with regard to the acceptance of the said amount.  If so, we have to arrive an inference in favour of the complainant with regard to the above said payment.  It is to see that the 1^st and 2^nd opposite party would say the financial difficulty and the reason for the suicide of the husband of 1^st opposite party resulted the difficulties in the financial management of the said establishment.  Ext.A1 is the legal notice issued for and on behalf of the complainant to the opposite parties.  Ext.A2 and A3 are the postal receipt of the said notice and its acknowledgment.  It is further noticed that even though the 1^st and 2^nd opposite party filed a version as stated above but due to unknown reason they did not turn up before this Forum and raise their contention as per their version.  It is true that certain documents are filed by the opposite party before the Forum prior to the examination of PW1.  At this juncture, we are also helpless to look into that document to decide this case.  However, it can be seen that the evidence adduced by the complainant is clearly unchallengeable as far as the opposite parties are concerned.  In this context, we have to rely the testimony of PW1 and other exhibits marked in favour of the complainant to decide this case.  As discussed above, it is evident to see that the complainant has a subscriber of opposite parties and remitted an amount of Rs.1,64,000/- with 2^nd opposite party’s financial establishment and the said amount is not seen returned to the complainant.  The defence of suicide of the husband of 1^st opposite party and financial crisis faced by opposite parties are irrelevant when deciding this case.  But at the same time, the pathetic condition suffered by the 1^st opposite party after the suicide of her husband has to be taken into account when we are deciding this case.  When examining the whole evidence of this case, it can be concluded that the opposite parties are committed deficiency in service against the complainant and the opposite parties are liable to the complainant.  Therefore, we find that the complaint is allowable.  Hence Point No.2 and 3 are also found in favour of the complainant.

                   8.  In the result, we pass the following orders:

1. The opposite parties are directed to return the complainant’s subscribed amount of Rs.1,64,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Sixty Four Thousand only) to the complainant with 10% interest from the date of order onwards.

2. The opposite parties are directed to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only)to the complainant with 10% interest to the complainant from the date of order onwards.

3. A cost of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only) is also allowed to the complainant from the opposite parties with an interest of 10% from the date of order onwards.

          Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed and typed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 30^th day of June, 2016.

                                                                                  (Sd/-)

                                                     P. Satheesh Chandran Nair,

                                                                    (President)

Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member – I)             :   (Sd/-)  

Smt. Sheela Jacob (Member- II)                 :   (Sd/-) 

Appendix:

Witness examined on the side of the complainant:

PW1  :  Siju A. Thomas

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:

A1 :  Legal notice dated 04.11.2014 sent by complainant’s counsel

        to 1^st opposite party. 

A2 : Postal receipt of Ext.A1. 

A3 : Postal acknowledgment card of Ext.A1.

A4 :  Photocopy of chitty pass book.

Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties:  Nil

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties:  Nil

                                                                                           (By Order)

Copy to:- (1) Siju. A.Thomas, Modiyil A. Villa, Vettipuram,

                    Pathanamthitta

2.  Pushpa Somarajan, Mannil House,

          Pathanamthitta H.P.O., Pathanamthitta – 689 645.

3. Pushpa Somarajan, Partner, Mannil Finance, Vadakkeveedu,

         1^st Floor, IX/995, KSRTC Road, Pathanamthitta – 689 645.

4. The Stock File.