Kerala

Trissur

OP/05/171

Bhaskaran - Complainant(s)

Versus

Variety Finance and Trades Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Prakash Menachery

21 Apr 2009

ORDER


CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
Ayyanthole , Thrissur
consumer case(CC) No. OP/05/171

Bhaskaran
...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

Variety Finance and Trades Pvt. Ltd.
A. Raman Menon
K.S. Syamaprasad
K.V. Chandran
K.S. Lohidakshan
Uma.A. Kumar
K.K. Baburajan
Sheela Viswanathan
E.V. Asokan
Pauly Kombarakkaran
...........Respondent(s)


BEFORE:
1. Padmini Sudheesh 2. Rajani P.S. 3. Sasidharan M.S

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):
1. Bhaskaran

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
1. Variety Finance and Trades Pvt. Ltd. 2. A. Raman Menon 3. K.S. Syamaprasad 4. K.V. Chandran 5. K.S. Lohidakshan 6. Uma.A. Kumar 7. K.K. Baburajan 8. Sheela Viswanathan 9. E.V. Asokan 10. Pauly Kombarakkaran

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
1. Prakash Menachery

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
1. E.T. Rajendra Menon 2. Adv. E.T. Rajendra Menon 4. Adv. T.K. Madhu 9. T.K. Madhu



ORDER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

 

By Smt. Padmini Sudheesh, President:
 
            The complainant’s case is as follows: The complainant had joined in the M26 monthly kuri conducted by the respondents as per ticket No.37. The said kuri started on 20.5.02 and terminated on 20.10.2004. The complainant had remitted all the kuri instalments. After the termination of the kuri, the complainant demanded Rs.1,00,000/-. The respondents returned only Rs.25,000/- and they delayed the balance payment. So the complainant sent a lawyer notice demanding the balance payment and interest for Rs.75,000/- on 12.1.05. But the said notice was returned. There is no remedy so far. Hence the complaint.
 
            2. The counter of respondents-1 and 2 is as follows: The respondent finance company is a registered company and is working as per Indian Companies Act 1956 and the registration number is 8290/94. The said firm is governed as per the bye law and the elected persons will become the Managing Director and Directors. The Managing Director of the company will perform all the activities of the company. On 6.11.2002 this respondent had taken leave for 15 days from the post of charmanship due to ill health and subsequently on 20.11.02 he had given 30 days prior notice to resign from the post of both director and chairman. Hence on 20.12.2002 this respondent resigned from the said post. After that this respondent received the said firm’s 9th annual report. This report includes the working report of 2002-03 and the audit balance sheet report on 31.3.2003 and the information for the annual general body meeting on 30.9.03. The eight Directors who had signed in these are also stated in it. This respondent never received the audit balance sheet and annual general body meeting held on 31.3.2004. Besides the above said 8 persons one more person is to be elected and this respondent has no knowledge about it. The directors in the year 2004 and the managing director in the complaint and other directors are only liable to return the amount to the complainant and as s result avoid this respondent from the case. 
 
            3. Other respondents called absent and set exparte.
 
            4. The points for consideration are:-
(1)   Is the complainant entitled to get the balance amount?
(2)   Other reliefs and costs.
 
            5. The evidence consists of Exts. P1 and P2 and R1.
 
            6. Points: The definite case of the complainant is that he has joined in the kuri and remitted all the instalments. He is entitled to get back Rs.1,00,000/- on the date of termination of the kuri. But he was given only Rs.25,000/- and the balance Rs.75,000/- has not been paid so far. So he is entitled to get Rs.75,000/- with interest. The complainant has produced the kuri passbook as evidence and it is true that he had paid all the instalments. In counter respondents-1 and 2 both are same state that he was in the post of Chairman only up to 20.12.02. So according to him during the termination of the kuri he is not a director and hence not liable. According to him, the managing director and Directors are only liable to return the balance amount of the complainant. He has also stated that he retired from the post of Chairman on 20.12.02. While looking into the evidence submitted by him it can be seen that his name is not mentioned in the balance sheet as on 31st March 2003. So his retirement was true. But he was the chairman at the time of commencement of the kuri and continued till 20.12.02. So he is also liable to return the balance amount to the complainant. The other respondents remained exparte and no counter evidence to them. So all the respondents together are liable to return the balance amount to the complainant.
 
            7. In the result, the complaint is allowed and all the respondents are directed to return the balance amount of Rs.75,000/- (Rupees seventy five thousand only) to the complainant with interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of kuri termination till realization with cost Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand only). Comply the order within one month. 
 

            Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, this the 21st day of April 2009.




......................Padmini Sudheesh
......................Rajani P.S.
......................Sasidharan M.S