By Smt. Padmini Sudheesh, President:

          The case of complainant is that the complainant was a kuri subscriber of 1^st respondent kuri company.    2^nd respondent is the Chairman and  3^rd to 10^th respondents are the directors of the company.  The complainant was kuri subscriber of 9^th day monthly kuri by statement No.83 and paid 25 instalments.  She was also the subscriber of 7^th day monthly kuri by statement No.66 and paid 14 instalments.  Both kuries were terminated but no amount is returned so far.  Hence the complaint.

          2. The counter averments of respondents 2,4,7 and 9 are that the complainant had committed defaults in the kuries and failed to pay  further.  On termination  of the kuri the due amount was returned to complainant.  So there is no liability towards the complainant.  There was not the event of nonfunctioning of the company.  There was no deficiency in service from these respondents.  Hence dismiss.

          3. Counter averments of 3^rd respondent are that this respondent is an unnecessary party in the complaint.  This respondent never  be the director of company.  So unaware of the transactions of the company.  On 6/9/07 this respondent had retired from the company and complainant is aware of the same.  There was no deficiency in service from this respondent.  Hence dismiss. 

          4. The counter averments of 5 and 6 respondents are that these respondents are not  the director  board members of 1^st respondent company.  These persons did not have any part in the day to day activities of the company.  They have retired from the respondent company and it was intimated to the authorities and published in the news paper also.  The respondent company is liable to pay more than Rs.2,00,000/- to these respondents.  The liability of the company is limited and these respondents are not at all liable to pay any amount.  There was no deficiency in service from these respondents.  The amounts demanded are barred by limitation. 

          5. Other respondents remained exparte.

          6. Points for consideration are that :

1) Whether the claims are barred by limitation ?

2) If not was there any deficiency in service from the respondents ?

3) Other reliefs and costs ?

          7. The evidence consists of oral testimonies of PW1 and RW1, Exhibits P1 & P2 and Exhibits R1 & R2.

          8. The complaint is filed   for realization of money.  The complainant claims the amounts due in two kuries  subscribed with respondents.  In the 9^th day monthly kuri the complainant had remitted 25 instalments amount and she claims the amount of Rs.7,500/- with interest at the rate of 12% and also bonus amount of Rs.500/-.  It is to be noted that as per Exhibit P2, the pass book of 9^th day monthly kuri the last instalment paid by complainant was on 9/6/07.  So without waiting for termination of kuri  she  can demand the amount  and on failure  on the part of respondents to repay the money she can take legal action.  She can also wait till the termination of the kuri, that is on 9/11/07.  If that be so the complaint should file within two years from the date of termination or last payment.  Both these not done.  This complaint is filed only on 1/3/10 after the limitation period prescribed under Consumer Protection Act.  So she is not eligible to get any  amount under this kuri.  So it is found that complainant is not entitled to get any amount as per Exhibit P2 pass book. 

          9. The complainant also claims Exhibit P1 amount.  According to complainant she is entitled to get back the amount after  reducing Rs.3,700/- which was returned by respondents.  The complainant is examined as PW1 and she has deposed in tune with the case. 

          10. It is the contention of 3^rd respondent that he had retired from the company  on 6/9/07. But there is no document produced to substantiate the same.  5^th and 6^th respondents also taken the contention that these respondents had resigned from the company and intimated the authorities.  They have produced   Exhibits R1 and R2 and as per Exhibit R2 in 2007 August they had made  publication in the news paper about their resignation.  But complainant claims the amount up to 7/5/07 before  their resignation.  It is found that the complainant is entitled to get the amount and respondents have committed deficiency in service in non payment of the amount.

          11. In the complaint it has stated that the respondents paid Rs.3,700/- and complainant is entitled to get back Rs.9,839/-.  Both the amounts as per Exhibits P1 and P2 are calculated by complainant as Rs.13,539/- and reduced Rs.3,700/-.  Thus she claims Rs.9,839/-.  The Forum already found that she is not entitled to get any amount as per Exhibit P2.  How the paid amount adjusted is not deposed by anybody.  In this circumstance the Forum is inclined to award the payment of Exhibit P1 amount by respondents.

          12. In the result the complaint is partly allowed and the respondents are directed to return Exhibit P1 amount with interest at the rate of 12% from the date of complaint that is 1/3/10 till realization with costs Rs.750/- within a month from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

           Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum this the 27^th day of  December 2013.