State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M. Lakshmi Narayanan,558, Raja ... vs . R. Venkatesan,26, Badra Kali Amman ... on 20 October, 2011
BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI Present Hon'ble Thiru Justice M. THANIKACHALAM PRESIDENT Thiru.J.Jayaram, M.A., M.L., JUDICIAL MEMBER
Tmt.Vasugi Ramanan, M.A., B.L., MEMBER II F.A.399/2007 [Against order in C.C.No.292/2003 on the file of the DCDRF, Coimbatore] DATED THIS THE 20th DAY OF OCTOBER 2011 M. Lakshmi Narayanan, | S/o. Sri Manickam Chettiar, | Appellant / 2nd OP Executive Director Rasi Nidhi Ltd., | 558, Raja Veethi, | Coimbatore - 1. | Vs.
1. R. Venkatesan, | 1st & 2nd Respondents/Complainants S/o. Ramamurthy Chettiar, | 26, Badra Kali Amman Koil Street, HoH | Kamatchi Nagar, Pollachi. | |
2. Minor V. Iswarya, | D/o. Venkatesan. |
3. M/s. Rasi Nidhi Ltd., |R3 to R10 / Ops.1, 3 to 10.
Rep. by its Director P.Chakrapani, | 729, Periakadai Veethi, | Coimbatore - 1. | |
4. P. Chakrapani, | S/o.
Balasubramaniam, | Director Rasi Nidhi Ltd., | NO.332, Range Gounder Street, | Coimbatore 1. | |
5. M.V. Balakrishnan, | S/o. Metha Venkat Rangaiah Chettiar, | Director Rasi Nidhi Ltd., | 1119, Periakadai Veethi, | Coimbatore - 1. | |
6. M.B. Gopal, | S/o.
Balakrishnan, | 1119, Periakadai Veethi, | Coimbatore - 1. | |
7. P. Sampath Kumar, | S/o. Pandu Rangan Chettiar, | Director Rasi Nidhi Ltd., | 275, Periakadai Veethi, | Coimbatore - 1. | |
8. N. Shankar, | S/o. Narashima Chettiar, | Director Rasi Nidhi Ltd., | 10-A, Iyyappa Nagar, Chetti Veethi, | Coimbatore 1. | |
9. Tmt. P. Jayasri, | W/o. Late C.S.Prakash, | Director Rasi Nidhi Ltd., | No.113, Om Sakthi Layout, | Vadavalli, Coimbatore. | |
10. L. Srinivasan, | S/o. Lakshmana Chettiar, | Director Rasi Nidhi Ltd., | 217, Sulaivan Veethi, | Coimbatore 1. | This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 03.10.2011, upon hearing the arguments of the appellant and R3, 4, 5, 6, 8 and 9 and perused the documents, as well as the order of the District Forum, this Commission made the following order:
Counsel for the Appellant /2nd OP. : M/s.S.Palanivelayutham, Advocate.
For the R1 & 2/Complainants : Served Absent.
Counsel for the R3, 4, 5, 6 & 8 : M/s.A. Muralikrishna Anandan,Advocate Counsel for 9th Respondent/9th OP : M/s.S.Kalyanaraman, Advocate.
For 10th Respondent/10th OP : Served Absent.
M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT
1. The second opposite party is the appellant.
2. The first and second respondents, as complainants, filed a consumer complainants for the payment of matured amount for three deposits made by them with the first opposite party, in which, other opposite parties are functioning as Directors, alleging that even after the maturity, despite many demands, they failed to pay the amount, thereby caused mental agony, for which also, they are entitled to compensation of Rs.25,000/-
with costs.
3. The second opposite party/appellant resisted the case inter alia contending, that he retired from the Director post with effect from 7.03.2002, that thereafter the entire administration of the first opposite partys in the hands of the opposite parties 3 to 9 and if at all they alone are liable to answer the claim, praying for the dismissal of the case as far as he is concerned.
4. The third opposite party questioning his status, as well as contending that two receipts were already cancelled, not only that, the claim is barred by limitation, and he was the Director between 28.08.2001 to 11.03.2002 and that there is a criminal case also pending, therefore, he is not liable to pay any amount.
5. The District Forum considering the rival contentions of the parties, came to the conclusion, that the claim of the complainants as far as two deposits are concerned is barred by limitation, as far as the claim of the complainants with respect of one deposit, is within the time, that non-settlement of the claim, having taken the Fixed Deposit should be construed as deficiency in service. Thus concluding, the complaint was allowed in part, directing the opposite parties 1 to 5, 7 & 2 [6th opposite died] to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- with interest thereon along with costs, as per the order dated 10.04.2007, which is challenged by the second opposite party alone on various grounds.
6. The first complainant is the father of the second complainant. As evidenced by Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 admittedly he had deposited Rs.10,000/- each with the first opposite party in his name and similarly he had deposited another sum of Rs.10,000/- in favour of his daughter-second complainant as evidenced by Ex.A3 on 31.07.2000. The first opposite party comes within the meaning of service as defined under the Consumer Protection Act. Therefore, for the non-return of the deposit amount, the case filed before the Consumer Forum is maintainable, not seriously challenged. The order is not only against the appellant, but also against Opposite parties 1, 3 to 5, 7 & 8 and the affected opposite parties by this order, having not preferred any appeal, we can say safely, concluding that the order dated 10.4.2007 reached finality as far as they are concerned.
7. The District Forum has come to the conclusion, as seen from Para 9 of the order, that the two deposits were cancelled on 08.08.2003 by making endorsement Account cancelled and it is an admitted case of the complainant also, though such an endorsement was made, amounts were not paid. Therefore, for the two deposits namely Ex.A1 and Ex.A2, cause of action had arisen even on 8.8.2001 and he should have filed the case within two years that is on or before 8.8.2003, but the case was filed after two years and in this view, the District Forum came to the conclusion that the claim is barred by limitation, which is not challenged by the first complainant. Thus, this finding also reached finality. The remaining items is only the deposit standing in the name of the second complainant for Rs.10,000/-, which is exhibited as Ex.A3, having maturity period upto 31.7.2005. In view of the non-payment of the amount in respect of other two FDRs, the complainant wanted the refund of third deposit also, which was not challenged and therefore, that should be construed as negligence, followed by deficiency in service. Therefore, the claim made within the time, is answerable by the opposite parties, and in this way alone, an award has been passed, which is questioned by the second opposite party alone.
8. The learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the second opposite party resigned/retired from the first opposite partys Company on 7.3.2002 and thereafter since he had no interest in the first opposite partys Company, the direction issued against him also is not sustainable in law and in aid, an order passed in the Company Petition was drawn to our attention. By going through the deposits, as well as date of resignation, and non-submission of the required form before the competent Authority concerned, we are of the view that the contention of the appellant is unsustainable, which can be seen from Ex.B1 order itself. The appellant by name Mr.Lakshmi Narayanan filed a petition before the Company Law Board, Southern Region Bench, Chennai in C.P.1051/2003 against the first opposite party and other Directors, seeking direction against the respondents 1 to 5 and 7 therein to file at the office of the Registrar of Company, Coimbatore, in Form No.32, duly notifying the change of Board of Directors of first opposite party. The Company Law Board considering the date of resignation namely 7.3.2003 as well as the same was informed to the Company, directed the respondents therein, to file Form No.32 with the Registrar of Companies as claimed in that petition within 21 days from the date of receipt of that order, that does not mean, the liability of the second opposite party/appellant came to an end or seized, which can be seen even from the said order, which reads This, however, is without prejudice to his liabilities and obligations which had occurred up to that date and which he cannot evade by severing his connection with the Company, thereby indicating, the issuance of direction has not relieved the appellant, from the liability of the first opposite party. Similar order also came to be passed, on the petition by other Directors also. The Directors who have resigned after the date of deposits, cannot escape from the liability and if this kind of defence is accepted, then every Director will accept the deposits, run away with money, thereby depriving the parties, that should not be allowed to be encouraged. In this case, three deposits were made on 31.7.2000, that is before the date 7.3.2003. The District Forum considering the position of law correctly, though not stated elaborately, has rightly directed the opposite parties to pay the amount, including the appellant/second opposite party, in which finding, we are unable to find any error, warranting our interference. Hence, the appeal is devoid of merits, liable to be dismissed.
9. In the result, the appeal is dismissed, confirming the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Coimbatore, in C.C.293/2003, dated 10.04.2007. No order as to costs in this appeal.
VASUGI RAMANAN J. JAYARAM M.THANIKACHALAM MEMBER II JUDICIAL MEMBER PRESIDENT