By Sri. M.S. Sasidharan, Member:
The complainant’s case is that the complainant subscribed two ticket vide statement No.16 and 105 in the 7th day and 21st day kuries conducted by the respondents. These kuries having monthly instalment of Rs.1500/- and Rs.600/- respectively and terminated on 7.5.07 and 21.11.07. The complainant remitted Rs.48,000/- in the 7th day kuri and Rs.38,600/- in the 21st day kuri. So he is entitled to get back Rs.45,000/- and Rs.30,000/- after deducting the foreman commission. But the amount has not been refunded to him inspite of repeated requests. So a lawyer notice was issued. But there was no remedy. Hence the complaint filed.
2. The 2nd respondent has filed a counter statement to the effect that he is not the chairman of the respondent firm and he is ignorant about the complainant’s kuri transaction with the respondent kuri company. He resigned from the chairmanship on 6.9.07 due to personal reasons. He did not know about the closing of the respondent kuri company. He is not liable to pay any amount. Hence dismiss the complaint.
3. The counter statement of the 3rd and 4th respondents is that the kuri company’s business was conducted by the chairman and these respondents were not personally liable to them. They have no personal knowledge of the kuri transaction conducted by the complainant. The complainant has never contacted these respondents and availed any service. Hence these respondents have no personal liability. Hence dismiss the complaint.
4. The points for consideration are that:
(1) Is the complainant entitled to get back the amount claimed?
(2) Other reliefs and costs.
5. The evidence consists of Exts. P1 to P5 series and the oral testimony of PW1. The respondents did not adduce any evidence.
6. Points: The complainant has remitted Rs.48,000/- in the 7th day kuri and Rs.33,600/- in the 21st day kuri conducted by the respondents. So he is entitled to get back Rs.45,000/- and Rs.30,000/- after deducting the foreman’s commission. The 2nd respondent has stated in his counter that he resigned from the chairmanship of the kuri company on 6.9.07. So he is not liable to pay back the amount. The 3rd and 4th respondents have stated that the business transactions were managed by the chairman and they have no personal liability in this matter. Ext. P1 is the kaipada in respect of the 7th day kuri and Ext. P2 is the passbook in respect of the 21st day kuri. They are perused. The remittances of all the instalments were recorded in Ext. P1 and P2. The 7th day kuri terminated on 7.5.07 and the 2nd respondents has himself stated that he resigned by the chairmanship only on 6.9.07. However no evidence is produced in this regard. There is no case that the 3rd and 4th respondents were not the directors of respondents kuri company. Since they were the directors of the kuri company they are also liable to pay back the amount remitted in the two kuries by the complainant.
7. In the result the complaint is allowed and the respondents are directed to pay the amount remitted as per Ext. P1 and P2 with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of termination of each kuri till realization with cost Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only) within two months from the date of receipt of copy of the order.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum this the 24th day of October 2011.
