- In spite of the service notice, nobody appears for the respondents.
- The Office has reported that there is delay of 2876 days in filing the appeal. The appellant has filed IA/12353/2023 for condoning the delay in filing the appeal. In the IA, the appellant has stated that in the complaint, the address of the appellant was given as Door No. H-19, Shanthi Sathan, Kochadai, Madurai - 625010. No notice of the complaint was ever served upon the appellant, who was then proceeded ex-parte. The complainant filed EA/1/2022 for executing the decree dated 23.12.2014. In this execution also, the address of the appellant was given as Door No. H-19, Shanthi Sathan, Kochadai, Madurai - 625010. Since the notice was not served, the decree holder served a private notice upon the appellant at his correct address on 16.07.2022. The appellant then appeared before the State Commission on 18.07.2022, and came to know about the impugned order. The free certified copy of the impugned order was also not sent to the appellant. The appellant applied for certified copy of the impugned order on 05.08.2022, which was issued on 11.08.2022. Then, the appeal was filed on 07.12.2022. After receiving the certified copy of the impugned order, the appellant took time in collecting the papers and thereafter consulting with the lawyers and arranging lawyers in Delhi for filing the appeal, therefore, delay occurred. The cause shown is sufficient. Delay in filing the appeal is condoned.
- In spite of service of the notice nobody appears for the respondents. The above appeal has been filed against the order of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Tamil Nadu, Madurai Bench, dated 23.12.2014, passed in CC/12/2014, whereby the complaint was allowed and the opposite parties were directed to refund the amount of Rs.32,45,000/- with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of respective deposit till the date of refund and pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- for mental agony and harassment and cost of Rs.10,000/-.
- In the complaint, the complainant has alleged that M/s Global Capital Trading Services (opposite party no.1) was a partnership firm, and the opposite party no.2 to 5 were its partner. On the instigation of the opposite parties, the complainant invested money through cheques dated 04.08.2009, 08.08.2009, 11.08.2009, and 14.08.2009, on the assurance that the complainant would receive 24% interest on this deposit. However, later on, the complainant neither received his principal amount nor any interest on it. Thereafter, FIR (Crime No.78/2010) was lodged on 28.11.2010, and this complaint was filed initially in the year 2012, and thereafter in year 2014.
- A short argument by the counsel for the appellant is that the appellant was not a partner in the firm M/s Global Capital Trading Services. He has filed the copy of the partnership deed, which shows that there were only three partners, namely, Mr. K. S. Palanichamy, Mr. D Ganesh Kumar and Mrs. P. Bhagyalakshmi. The whole allegation that the firm M/s Global Capital Trading Services enticed and got the money of the complainant. The appellant has no concerned with above firm. Before the State Commission a wrong address of the appellant has been given, therefore, neither notice was served nor the appellant was given any opportunity of hearing and the impugned order was passed.
- We have examined the record. From the partnership deed, it is proved that appellant was not a partner in M/s Global Capital Trading Services. Apart from that the partnership firm has taken money, there is no personal allegation against the appellant in the compliant, otherwise also the entire proceeding before the State Commission was ex-parte. In view of the above fact we allow this appeal and modify the order of State Commission, inasmuch as the appellant G. Ramdoss is exempted from the liability as conferred in the order dated 23.12.2014, passed in CC/12/2014.
| |
