By Sri. M.S. Sasidharan, Member:
The complainant’s case is that she had joined as subscriber to the 5th day No.10 monthly kuri as per statement No.280 to 282 on 5.1.1998. The complainant auctioned the kuri on 6.5.2002 and deposited the kuri amount in the respondent company on 2.11.2002 for 15% interest. The interest from the deposit was adjusted to the balance kuri instalments. The kuri was terminated on 5.3.2007. The complainant requested to return the amount as per the fixed deposit receipt. The respondent issued a cheque dt. 25.5.2007 for Rs.25,000/- drawn from the Nedupuzha Service Co-operative Bank. But the cheque was dishonoured due to insufficient fund in the respondent account. So a lawyer notice was issued on 8.1.2009 demanding to pay Rs.32,500/- and Rs.20,000/- as per the fixed deposit receipts. But there was no remedy. Hence the complaint filed.
2. The 2nd respondent filed a counter to the effect that it is not correct to state that he is a member in the director board of the 1st respondent firm. He was a member and chairman of the firm. But he retired from the chairmanship on 6.9.2007. The retirement has been duly informed to the Registrar of Firms in writing. He has no knowledge about the day to day affairs of the respondent firm after that. So the liability to give back the deposited amount to the complainant vested on the present chairman and directors. The complainant’s notice was duly replied. The 2nd respondent is not liable to give any money to the complainant. This respondent is not aware that the respondents have issued a cheque for Rs.25,000/- to the complainant.
3. The respondents-3, 5, 6 and 7 have stated in their version that there is no consumer relation or dispute between them and the complainant. The complainant has defaulted the kuri instalments. Hence she is not entitled to get back the deposited amount. These respondents have no personal liability in this case. Hence dismiss the complaint.
4. The contentions raised in the counter filed by the respondents-9 and 10 are that they are not the directors of the respondents firm. They have resigned from the respondent firm. It was informed to the authorities concerned and also advertised in the newspapers. The respondent firm is a limited company. So these respondents are not liable to give any money to the respondent. These respondents are only unnecessary parties in this case. Hence dismiss the complaint.
5. The 12th respondent has also stated in his counter that she has no connection with the respondent kuri company or its transaction. She has not received any amount or issued any receipts in favour of the complainant. So she is not liable to pay any amount to him. Hence dismiss the complaint.
6. Respondents-4, 8 and 11 are called absent and set exparte.
7. The points for consideration are:
(1) Is the complainant entitled to get the amount as per Exts.P1 and
P5 receipts?
(2) Other reliefs and costs.
8. The evidence adduced are Exts. P1 to P6, Ext. R1 and the oral testimonies of PW1 and RW1.
9. Points: The complaint is filed to get back the Exts. P1 and P5 amounts deposited in the respondent kuri company. The complainant has stated that she has auctioned the kuri subscribed by her and deposited Rs.32,500/- and Rs.30,000/- in the kuri company vide Exts. P1 and P5 receipts. Interest derived from these deposits were adjusted to forthcoming kuri instalments.
10. Exts. P1 and P5 are the receipts issued from the respondent kuri company. They are perused. It is stated in Ext. P1 receipt that the amount is deposited as security to 5th 10th day kuri as per statement Nos.280 to 282. Likewise it is written on Ext. P5 receipt the amount is deposited as security to 5th 10th day kuri as per statement Nos.280 to 282. The rate of interest on these two receipts is 15%. Interest paid from 2.11.02 to 2.2.2003 are recorded on the back side of these receipts. The complainant is examined as PW1. She has deposed that “
32,000/- 30,000/- director
.”
11. The respondents have stated that they are not the members of the director board. But they did not deny that they were the members in the director Board during the transaction of the disputed kuri. RW1 has deposed while cross examining him that his resignation was published in the Kerala Kaumudi daily on 2007. But no copy is produced. The disputed kuri began on 9.11.2004 and terminated on 9.11.2007. Ext. R1 does not prove that these respondents were not the members in the director board during the period of the kuri transactions. Hence the respondents are jointly and severally responsible to pay back the deposited amount.
12. In the result the complaint is allowed and the respondents are directed to pay the complainant the amounts as per Exts. P1 and P5 receipts with interest at the rate of 10% per annum from 5.3.2007 till realization with costs Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only) within two months 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 9th day of November 2012.
