State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
1.Kapil Chit Funds P Ltd., vs Kamreddy Venkata Ramana Reddy on 19 April, 2016
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM Telangana Revision Petition No. RP/47/2015 (Arisen out of Order Dated 08/07/2015 in Case No. Complaint Case No. CC/152/2013 of District Karimnagar) 1. 1.Kapil chit funds P ltd., 8 incline Branch, H.No 18-2-270/1,2,3, Shivajinagar, beside I town Police Station, Godavarikhani, Karimnagar Distrit, rep by its Branch Manager 2. 2. Kapil Foods and Structures Pvt Ltd., Regd Office h No 2-5-760, Subedari, Opp District Collector Office, Hanamkonda, Warangal, rep by its Authorized Signatory 3. 3.H. Raji Reddy, Deputy General Manager, KapilChitfunds Pvt Ltd., Zonal Office 3-1-188, 2nd Floor, CVRN Nagar, Karimnagar 505001 ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. Kamreddy venkata Ramana Reddy S/o K. Madhava Reddy, aged 38 years, occ. Mechanic, R/o h. No 9-7-124/1, Vittal nagar, Godavarikhani, Ramagundam V and M, Karimnagar District. ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. N. RAO NALLA PRESIDENT For the Petitioner: For the Respondent: ORDER
BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : HYDERABAD RP NO. 47/2015 AGAINST IA NO.8/2015 IN CC NO.152/2013 ON THE FILE OF DISTRICT FORUM, KARIMNAGAR Between:
1) Kapil Chit Funds (P) Ltd., 8 InclineBranch, H.No.18-2-270/1, 2, 3, Shivajinagar, Beside I-Town Police Station, Godavarikhani, Karimnagar district. Rep. by its Branch Manager. 2) Kapil Foods and Structures Pvt., Ltd., Regd. Office: H.No.2-5-760, Subedari, Opp: District Collector Office, Hanamkonda, Warangal, rep. by its Authorized Signatory. 3) H.Raji Reddy, Deputy General Manager, Kapil Chit Funds Pvt., Ltd., Zonal Office: 3-1-188, 2nd Floor, C.V.R.N. Nagar, Karimnagar - 505 001. ... Revision Petitioners/ Petitioners/Opposite parties And Kamreddy Venkata Ramana Reddy S/o K.Madhava Reddy, aged 38 years, Occ: Mechanic, R/o H.No.9-7-124/1, Vittal Nagar, Godavarikhani, Ramagundam Village & Mandal, Karimnagar district. ...Respondent/ Respondent/Complainant Counsel for the Petitioners : M/s P.Vishnu Vardhan Reddy Counsel for the Respondent : Respondent-in-person Coram : Hon'ble Sri Justice B.N.Rao Nalla ... President Tuesday, the Nineteenth day of April Two thousand Sixteen Oral Order : (per Hon'ble Sri Justice B.N.Rao Nalla, Hon'ble President) *** 1) This is a revision filed by the Petitioners herein who are the Opposite parties against the orders dated 08.07.2015 passed in IA No.8/2015 in CC No.152/2013 by the District Consumer Forum, Karimnagar in dismissing the petition. 2) For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the forum below. 3) It is the case of Petitioners that they filed an application before the forum below under Order-I, Rule-10(2) of CPC praying to implead one Md.Nayeemuddin S/o Aleemuddin, aged about 30 years, Occ: Ex. Asst. Business Manager, R/o Q.No.626, Gandhinagar, Ramagundam, Godavarikhani as Opposite party No.4 in the complaint. The reasons assigned for seeking impleadment is that the Respondent/Complainant herein filed a complaint bearing CC No.152/2013 with false allegations basing on a fabricated Debenture Certificate. As the Respondent/Complainant was maintaining good relations with the then Asst. Branch Manager in their office. Even as per the receipt filed by the Respondent/Complainant, Md.Nayeemuddin issued a receipt after receiving a sum of Rs.1.00 lakh. On coming to know of the same, the Revision Petitioners stated to have enquired about the Debenture Certificate and found to be fake and not issued by the Petitioner/Opposite Party No.2, as such, a complaint was lodged with the Police Station, Godavarikhani I-Town in Cr.No.204/2013 for the offences punishable under sections 420, 408, 468 and 471 of IPC which is pending trial. Having colluded with the then Branch Manager and in order to cause wrongful loss, the Respondent/Complainant intentionally failed to make the said person as party to the proceedings. As such, Md.Nayeemuddin is a necessary party to be added to the proceedings for proper and effectual adjudication of the case. 4) Resisting the petition allegations, the Respondent/Complainant filed counter stating that he paid Rs.1,00,000/- in the office of the Petitioners/Opposite parties but not to any individual. In turn, the office of the Petitioners/Opposite parties issued receipt in his favour and that he has no relation with the Branch Manager and in case of any dispute between the employee, the Petitioners/Opposite parties, they have to take action against him. The said Business Manager by name Nayeemuddin is no way concerned with him and hence, the Petitioners/Opposite parties are liable to pay the amount covered by the receipt. It is only to drag on the matter, the impleadment petition is filed and accordingly prayed to dismiss the petition with exemplary costs. 5) The Forum below passed orders on 08.07.2015 dismissing the petition by observing that the case is pending since November 2013 and the Petitioners/Opposite parties are supposed to file their evidence affidavit since June 2014 and the present application which is under revision was filed in the month of January 2015 which they failed to file at the initial stage, but instead filed at belated stage. It also opined that the petition seems to be fictitious and does not merit any consideration. 6) In the grounds of revision, it is contended that the Petitioners herein had never issued the Debenture Certificate to the Respondent/Complainant and never assured to pay double the amount of deposit, on maturity date. The Debenture Certificate filed by the Respondent/Complainant was issued by one Md.Nayeemuddin; that the Petitioner is a chit fund company only to do the chit business and no schemes were introduced to attract deposits from the public; the Petitioner company is having separate receipt books to issue receipts whenever any amount is received from the subscriber and never issued such receipts on letter head as filed by the Complainant; it failed to consider the fact that the Petitioner Company lodged a complaint against Md.Nayeemuddin and Sadashiva Reddy before the Police, Godavarikhani I-Town on 19.06.2013 and the matter is pending investigation; that the Police also seized the fake debenture certificates and receipts; the Petitioner is not liable for the dishonest criminal act. Hence, it is proper and necessary to implead the proposed party. Hence, prayed to set aside the orders dated 08.07.2015 passed in IA No.8/2015 in CC No.152 of 2013 by the District Consumer Forum, Karimnagar. 7) The point that arises for consideration is whether the forum below erred in dismissing the interlocutory application which is under challenge in this revision; to what relief?
8) A perusal of the copy of complaint filed goes to show that the Respondent/ Complainant herein deposited an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- under fixed deposit scheme for a period from 02.02.2013 to 02.02.2018, to which the Petitioner/Opposite party No.1 issued a receipt dated 01.02.2013. That, on repeated requests, in the month of November 2013 the Petitioner/Opposite party No.2 issued a Debenture Certificate mentioning the Certificate No.DBN/KFS-RMP/007/2013 but it failed to issue the original bond for the same. At the time of deposit, it was assured to pay the double the amount deposited on maturity date and thereafter, it was informed by the Petitioner/Opposite party No.1 that the certificate issued is a fake one. That, on 30.05.2013, the Respondent/Complainant made a representation to issue the original bond for the amount deposited by him, which was acknowledged by the Petitioner/ Opposite party No.3 and took away the certificate from the Petitioner/Complainant on 03.07.2013 for the purpose of police investigation and assured to refund the deposited amount by 31.07.2013. An endorsement was also made on the Photostat copy of the Debenture Certificate issued to him. After waiting for considerable time, he filed the complaint.
9) The complaint is stated to have been filed on 10.10.2013 and resisting the claim of Respondent/Complainant, the Petitioners/Opposite parties herein filed their counter on 17.04.2014. It is needless to go into the averments made in the counter therein by this Commission at this stage. And the Respondent/Complainant filed his evidence affidavit. As things stood thus, the Petitioners/Opposite parties herein filed the interlocutory application on 23.01.2015 and the orders have been passed by the forum below on 08.07.2015. As against the same, the present revision is filed.
10) A perusal of the counter filed by the Petitioners/Opposite parties in CC No.152/2013 would go to show that it admitted the receipt of Rs.1,00,000/- from the Complainant but not by its Company, instead by one Md.Nayeemuddin, its Business Manager on the letter head of the Company with an intention to cheat the Company. It is also contended that said Sadashiva Reddy and Md.Nayeemuddin, the then Asst. Branch Manager have also issued few other fake receipts and debentures to others with an intention to cheat the Company. As against their misdeeds, a police complaint was lodged and the investigation is pending.
11) From the above averments, it is clear that said Sadashiva Reddy and Md.Nayeemuddin were the employees of the Petitioners/Opposite parties who acted for and on behalf of the Petitioners and the relationship between the Petitioners and that of said employees is none other than 'master' and 'servant' or 'employee' and 'employer'. For all the acts of omission and commission done by the servant, the master is equally and vicariously liable. It is an admitted fact that the said Sadashiva Reddy and Md.Nayeemuddin were the employees of the Petitioners/Opposite parties working in the branch office and the Respondent/Complainant paid the money which is in dispute in the said branch and not outside. Hence, it can be construed that said Sadashiva Reddy and Md.Nayeemuddin acted for and on behalf of the Petitioners/ Opposite parties and have passed the receipts on behalf of the Petitioners. On the principle of vicarious liability of the master for the acts done by the servant, the master is liable to indemnify the third parties. Therefore, the Petitioners/Opposite parties are to be mulcted with the liability.
12) It is to be stated that the principle of vicarious liability of master in respect of the tortuous acts of the servant in the course of his employment is now well settled. In Halsbury's Laws of England, Fourth Edition, Volume 16, Paragraph 739, it has been stated:
"Where the act which the employee is expressly authorised to do is lawful, the employer is nevertheless responsible for the manner in which the employee executes his authority. If, therefore, the employee does the act in such a manner as to occasion injury to a third person, the employer cannot escape liability on the ground that he did not actually authorise the particular manner in which the act was done, or even on the ground that the employee was acting on his own behalf and not on that of his employer."
In Salmond's Law of Torts (Twentieth Edition) at Page 458, it is stated thus:
".....On the other hand it has been held that a servant who is authorised to drive a motor vehicle, and who permits an unauthorised person to drive it in his place, may yet be acting within the scope of his employment. The act of permitting another to drive may be a mode, albeit an improper one, of doing the authorised work. The master may even be responsible if the servant impliedly, and not expressly, permits an unauthorised person to drive the vehicle, as where he leaves it unattended in such a manner that it is reasonably foreseeable that the third party will attempt to drive it, atleast if the driver retains notional control of the vehicle."
13) In Ilkiw v. Samuels, (1963) 1 WLR 991, it was contended that the driver to whom the vehicle had been entrusted for driving had no authority from employer to delegate the driving of the vehicle to another person and because of that the employer cannot be made vicariously liable for the negligence of someone to whom he had purported to delegate the control of the vehicle. While negativing the said contention, it was said:
"The duty of tort of which he was in breach was, in my view, a duty delegated to him by the defendants under his contract of employment, and for that breach the defendants are vicariously liable notwithstanding that it resulted from his breach of an express prohibition by the defendants against permitting any other person to drive, for that prohibition did not limit the sphere of his employment, but dealt with the conduct of Waines within that sphere."
In view of the above discussion, it is appropriate that when a criminal case is already pending trial against the said Sadashiv Reddy and Md.Nayeemuddin, there is no need for impleading them as party to the present proceedings in view of the fact that both of them are none other than the employees of the Petitioners/Opposite parties. Admittedly, the amount which is under dispute is received by them during and in the course of their employment with the Petitioners/Opposite parties, hence, the Petitioners cannot evade their liability showing some or other lame excuses. Except stating that the Debenture Certificates that were issued to the Respondent/Complainant were fake, they have not denied that the same do not pertain to their company, which mean to say that they are not original ones. If such being the case, it is for the Petitioners/ Opposite parties to recover the amount from its employees by way of appropriate proceedings in a competent court of law and for such misdeeds, the Respondent/ Complainant cannot be left to lurch.
14) Even if the proposed party is permitted to be impleaded in the proceedings, nothing new can be elicited except making a statement that the Certificates in question were issued on behalf of the Petitioners/Opposite parties. Hence, impleading the said Sadashiv Reddy or Md.Nayeemuddin would not serve any purpose. Since the amounts were paid by the Respondent/Complainant in the branch office of the Petitioners, the Petitioners/Opposite parties are vicariously liable to make good the loss sustained by the Respondent/Complainant. The Petitioners/Opposite parties are at liberty to reimburse the money from its employees by way of appropriate proceedings.
15) Viewed from any angle, the revision does not merit any consideration and accordingly this Commission is not inclined to accept the contention of the Petitioners that impleading Sadashiv Reddy or Md.Nayeemuddin is proper and necessary.
16) In the result, the revision is accordingly dismissed. In the circumstances, the parties to bear their own costs.
PRESIDENT Dt.19.04.2016 [HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. N. RAO NALLA] PRESIDENT