By Sri. M.S. Sasidharan, Member:
The complainant’s case is that he had joined the 9th day No.1 pooval kuri conducted by the respondents on 9.11.94 vide statement Nos.441, 440, 442 and 443. The complainant auctioned the kuri on 9.3.1996 and 9.7.1996 respectively and deposited Rs.24,435/- on 27.7.96 and Rs.9285/- on 21,11,96 in the respondent kuri company with 10% interest. The interest amount derived from these deposits were adjusted to the balance kuri amounts. The kuri was terminated on 9.11.2007. The respondents issued receipts for these deposits. The complainant requested to refund the deposited amount many times. But no amount was given back. So a lawyer notice was issued on 13.1.2009. But there was no remedy. Hence the complainant.
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. Hence dismiss the complaint.
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 he 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
P2 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 P2 amounts deposited in the respondent kuri company. The complainant has stated that he has auctioned the kuri subscribed by him and deposited Rs.24,435/- on 27.7.96 vide Ext. P1 receipt and Rs.9285 on 21.11.96 vide Ext. P2 receipt. Interest derived from these deposits were adjusted into forthcoming instalments. The kuri terminated on 9.11.2007. But the deposited amounts were not returned to him with interest. The respondents have stated that they were not the directors of the kuri company at present and all of them have retired from the director board and also that they have no personal liability to give any money to the complainant. Exts. P1 and P2 are the receipts issued from the respondent kuri company. They are perused. It is stated in Ext. P1 receipt that the amount is deposited a security to the 9th day pooval kuri as per statement No.440, 442, and 443. The rate of interest is 10% and the chairman has signed on it. Likewise it is written on Ext. P2 receipt that it is deposited as security to 9th day pooval kuri as per statement No.441. The chairman has signed on it. Interest paid from 27.7.96 to 27.11.2006 are stated on the rear side of the two receipts. The complainant
is examined as PW1. He has deposed that “
Ext. P1
He has further deposed that “
passbook .” The PW1 has also deposed that he has not received the interest for the deposited amount.
10. 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 druring the transactions 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.
11. In the result the complaint is allowed and the respondents are directed to pay the complainant the amount as per Exts. P1 and P2 receipt with interest at the rate of 10% per annum from 9.11.07 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.
