Andhra Pradesh

StateCommission

FA/939/06

P.UMA PARTHASARATHY - Complainant(s)

Versus

SREE TEJA BENEFIT FUND LTD - Opp.Party(s)

MS. G.RAMA SHARMA

21 Nov 2008

ORDER

 
First Appeal No. FA/939/06
(Arisen out of Order Dated null in Case No. of District Kurnool)
 
1. P.UMA PARTHASARATHY
R/O 76 P AND T COLONY TIRUMULGHERRY SECUNDERABAD
Andhra Pradesh
...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. SREE TEJA BENEFIT FUND LTD
106 1ST FLOOR RAHMAT COMPLEX AMEERPET HYD
Andhra Pradesh
2. B. HARI KRISHNA
SREE TEJA BENEFIT FUND LTD OFFICE 106 1ST FLOOR RAHMAT COMPLEX AMEERPET HYD
HYD
Andhra Pradesh
3. B.MARUTHI
SREE TEJA BENEFIT FUND LTD OFFICE 106 1ST FLOOR RAHMAT COMPLEX AMEERPET HYD
HYD
Andhra Pradesh
...........Respondent(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 
PRESENT:
 
ORDER

BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION:

HYDERABAD.

 

F.A.Nos.783/2006, 877/2006, 939/2006 and 940/2006 AGAINST C.D.Nos.390/2004, 394/2004, 397/2004 and 398/2004HYDERABAD.

 

Between:

 

1. P.Vani Parthasarathy, D/o.Major Parthasarathy,

   

   

   

                                                                                                           2. P.Sathyavathi, W/o.Major Parthasarathy,

   

   

   

                                                                                                           3. P.Uma Parthasarathy, D/o.Major Parathasarathy,

   

   

   

                                                                                                           4. Major Parthasarathy, S/o.Aswatharamaiah,

   

   

   

                                                                                                            

            

1. Sree Teja Benefit Fund Limited, Ofice at 106,

   

    Hyderabad, rep. by its Managing Director.

 

2. B.Hari Krishna, S/o.not known, aged 55 years,

   

   st   Hyderabad.

 

3. B.Maruthi, S/o.HariKrishna, age 30 years,

   

   st   Hyderabad.                                 in F.A.Nos.

 

Counsel for the Appellant    

 

Counsel for the Respondents: Mr.P.Ramachandram- 1 to 3

 

QUORUM:THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT.

           SMT.M.SHREESHA, MEMBER..

 

FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF NOVEMBER,

TWO THOUSAND EIGHT.

 

Oral Order:(Per Smt.M.Shreesha, Hon’ble***

These appeals i.e. F.A.Nos.783/2006, 877/2006, 939/2006 and 940/2006 are disposed of by a common order since the facts are similar in all these appeals. 

           Aggrieved by the order in C.D.Nos.390/2004,394/2004, 397/2004 and 398/2004on the file of District Forum-I,Hyderabad, the complainants 

F.A.No.783/2006:

The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant deposited an amount of Rs.2,98,500/-, with opposite party No.1 company, opposite party No.2 being the Managing Director of opposite party No.1 company and opposite party No.3 being the Director.  15-11-2002.     

Opposite party No.3 filed counter on behalf of opposite parties 1 to 3 denying the allegations made in the complaint.    

They further submitted that as per RBI guidelines, the company cannot release the unmatured FD amounts to the complainant.  opposite parties also filed civil cases against the borrowers and also against the father of the complainant. 

Based on the evidence adduced i.e. Exs.A1 to A7 and B1 to B5, the District Forum 

Aggrieved by the said order, the complainants preferred these appeals.

           The learned counsel for the appellants/complainants submitted that the District Forum failed to appreciate that it is the case of the respondents/opposite parties that the father and husband of the appellants/complainants in F.A.Nos. 783/2006, 939/2006 and 877/2006 and complainant in F.A.No.940/2006 stood as guarantor to the loans given to third parties and as there was default in payment, opposite parties had exercised lien over the appellants’ F.D.Rs.  F.A.Nos. 783/2006, 939/2006 and 877/2006 stood as guarantors to the loans said to have been advanced by the respondents. 

        in F.A.Nos.783/2006, 939/2006, 877/2006 and complainant himself in F.A.No.940/2006 stood as guarantor for more than Rs.10 lakhs and the people for whom Mr.Pardhasarathi stood as guarantor did not repay loans for which opposite parties also filed civil suits for recovery of the amounts.  

          City Civil Court,Hyderabad   

As seen from the record, the amounts deposited by the complainants are not in dispute.     

We rely on the judgement of the Apex court inAIR 2002 SC P-2931 

‘The redressal agencies constituted under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986   

       INDIA,

Relegation of matters to civil court on the ground of complicated questions of facts and law after 4 years by National Commission is        Keeping in view the aforementioned judgements and also to reiterate the fact that the appellants/complainants inF.A.Nos.783/2006, 939/2006 and 877/2006 have not stood as guarantors for any loan, they cannot be made liable merely because their father, husband  

        

F.A.No.940/2006

        

        

 

       

 PRESIDENT.

                                                                                   .

 

 

 

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.