By Smt.Padmii Sudheesh, President
The case of complainant is that the complainant was a subscriber of 4th day pooval kuri conducted by respondents. The kuri was started on 4/7/00 and the instalment was Rs.4,000/-. The complainant had remitted 21 instalments and Rs.84,000/- has given to complainant. The respondent firm was stopped working and so the complainant was unabale to remit the kuri amount further. The complainant was forced to send lawyer notice dated 29/1/09 but no amount is paid so far. Hence the complaint.
2. The counter averments of 2nd respondent is to the effect that this respondent is an unnecessary party in the complaint. This respondent was not the Chairman of respondent kuries. On 6/9/07 this respondent had retired from the kuri company owing to personal reasons. This respondent is not at all responsible to pay any amount to complainant.
3.The counter of respondents 3,4,6 and 7 is that the respondent company is still functioning and not closed. The account statements in the complaint are false. There are defaults on the part of complainant. These respondents are not liable to pay any amount to complainant. Hence dismiss.
4. The counter of respondents 8 and 9 is to the effect that these respondents are not the directors of this company. These respondents retired from the respondent institution. They had intimated the same and also made advertisement in the newspaper The respondent firm is liable to pay to these respondents and there is Rs.2,00,000/- due to these respondents. The liability of the respondent company is limited. So these respondents have no personal liability to get the amount sought.
5. Other respondents remained exparte.
6.Points for consideration are that :
1) Whether the complainant is entitled to get the amount sought ?
2) Other reliefs and costs ?
7. Evidence consists of oral testimonies of PW1 and RW1, Exhibits P1 to P4 series and Exhibits R1 to R3.
8. The complaint is filed to get back the kuri amount remitted with the respondents kuries and loans company. The complainant produced Exhibit P1 pass book which was issued by the respondent company to complainant. As per Exhibit P1 complainant was a subscriber of 4th day pooval kuri conducted by respondents and he had remitted the amount upto 21/4/07. It is the case that the complainant could not remit further instalments because the firm was closed. So this complaint is filed to get back the amount with interest.
9. Some of the respondents filed counter and contested the case and some of them remained exparte. The 2nd respondent contented that he has retired from the Chairmanship of the company on 6/9/07 owing to personal reasons But he has no case that he had retired from the director board of the company. During cross examination to PW1 it is the case that he has retired from the firm on due notice. But there is no evidence adduced by him in this regard. So the contention remains disproved.
10. The respondents 3,4,6 and 7 taken the contention that the company is still functioning and not closed and the complainant committed defaults in payment of the kuri amount. But no evidence adduced by these respondents also to prove their contentions. The Forum can take judicial notice that the firm is not functioning because several cases are pending against the firm and several warrants are pending against the firm and the members are not turning up. So the contentions of these respondents are meaningless.
11. The respondents 8 and 9 produced Exhibits R1 to R3 documents in support of their case. 9th respondent is examined as RW1 and it is his version that he has retired from the director board of the company. It is his case that he and the 8th respondent, his father have retired from the director board and not at all responsible for the complaint. They have produced Exhibits R1 to R3 documents and Exhibit R2 is the newspaper copy , which would show an advertisement with regard to the resignation of RW1 and 8th respondent from the director board of respondents company. But this advertisement is not at all sufficient because no document is produced from the registrar of company. During cross examination it has stated by RW1 that form No.32 application was submitted as per Companies Act. But no documents are produced in this regard. So the resignation of these respondents is not believable and Exhibit R2 is not sufficient. Exhibit R1 is the copy of Memorandum of Association of the respondents company. These respondents produced the same to show that the liability of the members is limited. There is nothing in the documents to show the repayment of amount to the subscribers on fall of the company. It is true that the liability is limited according to Exhibit R1. There are no details with regard to the properties of the company. For clearing off the liability the properties of the company should be liable if there is no personal liability. But there are no such details in Exhibits R1 and R3. The respondents cannot escape from their liability by stating that the liability of the company is limited. All the respondents are liable to return Exhibit P1 amount with interest.
12. In the result the complaint is allowed and the respondents are directed to return Exhibit P1 amount with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of complaint that is 24/7/09 till realization with costs Rs.500/- within two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
Dictated to the Confdl. Asst., transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum this the 25th day of October 2012.
