Kerala

Trissur

CC/07/26

Dhanesh.M.V. - Complainant(s)

Versus

South Malabar Rnterprises Edamuttom - Opp.Party(s)

P.P.Babu

30 Nov 2009

ORDER


CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
Ayyanthole , Thrissur
consumer case(CC) No. CC/07/26

Dhanesh.M.V.
...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

South Malabar Rnterprises Edamuttom
K.R.Manoharan
N.A.Velayudhan
V.S.Jyothi Basu
V.K.Sachidanandan
E.N.Vijayalakshmy
...........Respondent(s)


BEFORE:
1. Padmini Sudheesh 2. Rajani P.S. 3. Sasidharan M.S

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):
1. Dhanesh.M.V.

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
1. South Malabar Rnterprises Edamuttom 2. K.R.Manoharan 3. N.A.Velayudhan 4. V.S.Jyothi Basu 5. V.K.Sachidanandan 6. E.N.Vijayalakshmy

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
1. P.P.Babu

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
2. P.G.Devadas and N.U.Praseetha 5. V.R.Ramachandran 6. Sreekumar Puthezhath



ORDER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

 

 
By Smt. Padmini Sudheesh, President:
 
            The complainant deposited an amount of Rs.55,800/- by way of deposit receipt No.47 with the respondent firm. As per the receipt the complainant is entitled for interest at the rate of 14% per annum. He has received interest till December 2004. Thereafter the respondents failed to pay interest. The deposited amount also not returned. Hence this complaint. 
 
            2. The averments in the counter of 2nd 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 2nd 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 by 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 4th and 6th respondents filed separate counter by totally denying the averments in the complaint.
 
            4. The other respondents remained absent and set exparte.
 
            5. The points for consideration are:
(1)   Is there any deficiency in service on the part of respondents?
(2)   If so reliefs and costs.
 
            6. The evidence consists of Exts. P1 and P2 on the part of complainant and Exts. R1 to R3 on the part of 2nd respondent. No oral evidence adduced. 
 
            7. Points-1 & 2: The complaint is filed for realization of fixed deposit amount which was deposited with the respondent firm by way of fixed deposit. As per Ext. P1 on 7.2.2004 the complainant deposited Rs.55,800/- with the respondent firm. According to the complainant, he has received interest at the rate of 14% till December 2004. So in this complaint he seeks the principal amount with interest after that period. In Ext. P1 there is no rate of interest mentioned. But at the same time there is no denial on the part of respondents with regard to the rate of interest claimed by the complainant. But according to us since there is no mention of rate of interest, he is not entitled for exorbitant interest rate of 14%.
 
            8. In the counter the 2nd respondent contended that at the relevant period of transaction he was not a partner. He stated that since 18.12.1998 the 2nd respondent 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 2nd 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 2nd 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 2nd respondent is not proved by 2nd 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.
 
            9. The 4th and 6th respondents filed separate counter by totally denying the averments in the complaint. No specific case is put forward by them. The 6th respondent filed an affidavit stating that she is not liable to answer the claim of complainant. 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.
 
            10. 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 January 2005 till realization with costs Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand only) to the complainant within one month.

            Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, this the 30th day of November 2009.




......................Padmini Sudheesh
......................Rajani P.S.
......................Sasidharan M.S