The case of the complainant is as follows. The complainant was a subscriber of a kuri conducted by the respondents as per kuri Division No.G3 having kaipada No.11. The total sala of the kuri is Rs.50,000/- having 25 instalments of Rs.2000/- each and will be matured on 9.12.2004. The complainant paid all the instalments and the last payment was made on 8.12.2004. The complainant had not received the amount after the maturity and even after repeated demands made by him thereafter. The respondents closed the firm on 7.1.2005 and the managing partner is seen absconding. Though he approached the other partners they were not ready to give back the amount. The firm is not working now. Hence the complaint. 

 

            2. The averments in the counter of 2^nd respondent are that it is true that this respondent was a partner of the first respondent firm during its beginning. But he ceased to be a partner since 18.12.98 on which date the 2^nd respondent retired from the partnership firm by issuing a notice. As per the notice issued by this respondent the other partners allowed him to retire from the firm settling all his accounts and continued the partnership firm with the remaining partners. After the above date this respondent never participated in any of the activities of the firm. So he is not at all liable for any claim of the complainant. This respondent is not aware whether the complainant had deposited any amount. No cause of action is made out against this respondent, as the complainant very well knew that this respondent was no longer a partner.   The complainant is not entitled for any amount from this respondent as he was not a partner of the firm. Hence dismiss the complaint.

 

            3. The 3^rd respondent is called absent and set exparte.

 

            4. The 4^th respondent has filed a counter to the effect that the complainant had never subscribed to any kuri conducted by the respondents and the complainant is not entitled to get any amount claimed and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

 

            5. In the counter filed by the 5^th respondent it is stated that he is not a partner of the first respondent firm and also unaware as to whether the complainant had joined the chitty or not and whether the chitty amount if any remains to be paid to him from the first respondent firm. This respondent is not aware of the correctness of the claim made by the complainant as he is not connected with the said transaction. This respondent is not bound to make any payment to the complainant as claimed by him as this respondent was not a partner of the first respondent firm at the time the complainant joining in the chitty or thereafter at any point of time. The rate of interest claimed in the complaint is excessive. To the best of knowledge of this respondent the first respondent firm became non-functional as the subscribers who had prized and auctioned the chitties did not pay the future subscriptions. It is also known that huge sum of money is due to the first respondent firm from various customers and chitty holders but those amounts were not able to be realized as the managing partner was forced to abscond as the firm became non functional and the people who are entitled to receive the money began to cause all kinds of harassment and use of force against him. The claim of compensation ofRs.2500/- is highly excessive and unreasonable and the situations available in the case do not warrant payment of compensation. Hence dismiss.

 

            6. The 6^th respondent has also stated in her counter that she is not a partner of the respondent firm and is in no way related to the respondent firm.

 

            7. The points for consideration are:

(1)   Is there any deficiency in service on the part of respondents?

(2)   If so reliefs and costs.

 

            8. The evidence consists of Exts. P1 and P2 on the part of complainant and Exts. R1 to R3 on the part of 2^nd respondent. No oral evidence adduced by both.

 

            9. Points-1 & 2: The complainant subscribed a kuri in the respondent firm. The total sala of the kuri is Rs.50,000/- having 25 instalments and the said kuri matured on 9.12.2004. The complainant paid all instalments but he has not received the amount after the maturity. Ext. P1 shows that the complainant paid 25 instalments of the kuri and the last payment was on 8.12.2004. There is no evidence brought by the respondents to show that they have released the amount to complainant. They have taken various contentions and second respondent says that at the relevant period of transaction he was not a partner. He stated that since 18.12.1998 he retired from the partnership by issuing a notice. He produced Exts. R1 to R3 to substantiate his contention. Ext. R2 is the photostat copy of request made by 2^nd respondent to the managing partner of respondent firm. Ext. R3 is the photostat copy of a letter issued to the managing partner of the firm by the 2^nd respondent in which it is stated that he may be permitted to retire from the partnership. These letters are not sufficient to show that he was retired from partnership firm since 18.12.1998. What is the procedure adopted by the firm by accepting the letter of 2^nd respondent is not proved by 2^nd respondent. There is not at all any evidence to show that he was retired from the partnership firm on 18.12.98. Exts. R2 and R3 are only requests. So these documents cannot be taken as retirement letters.

 

            10. The 4^th, 5^th and 6^th respondents filed separate counters by totally denying the averments in the complaint. All the respondents who are parties in the complaint are partners as per Ext. P2. There is nothing brought by the respondents to defeat the case of complainant. So the complaint is liable to be allowed.

 

            11. In the result, the complaint is allowed and all the respondents are directed to return the Ext. P1 amount with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of last payment till realization with costs Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand only) to the complainant within one month.