State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Praveen Kumarand Others Mahaboobnagar vs B.Hanmanth Rao, And Others ... on 7 April, 2009
BEFORE THE A BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : AT HYDERABAD. FA.No.335/2006 against CC.No.117/2005 District Consumer Forum, Mahabubnagar. Between: 1.Praveen Kumar, S/o.Narayana Shambu, Aged about 30 years, R/o.H.No.15-23, Gandhinagar Colony, Shadnagar, Mahaboobnagar District. 2.Chiteeti Anusha Reddy, D/o.C.Narsimha Reddy, Aged about 25 years, Lecturer, Srinivasa Nagar Colony, Shadnagar, Mahaboobnagar District. Appellants/O.Ps. And B.Hanmanth Rao, S/o.late Dattatreya Rao, Aged about 65 years, Occ: Retired Employee, R/o.H.No.19-91, Venkateswara Colony, Shadnagar, Faruqnagar (M), Mahaboobnagar District. Respondent/Complainant. FA.No.336/2006 against CC.No.118/2005 District Consumer Forum, Mahabubnagar. Between: 1.Praveen Kumar, S/o.Narayana Shambu, Aged about 30 years, R/o.H.No.15-23, Gandhinagar Colony, Shadnagar, Mahaboobnagar District. 2.Chiteeti Anusha Reddy, D/o.C.Narsimha Reddy, Aged about 25 years, Lecturer, Srinivasa Nagar Colony, Shadnagar, Mahaboobnagar District. Appellants/O.Ps. And Smt.B.Sumithramma, W/o.B.Hanmanth Rao, Aged about 60 years, Occ: Household, R/o.H.No.19-91, Venkateswara Colony, Shadnagar, Faruqnagar (M), Mahaboobnagar District. Respondent/Complainant. FA.No.337/2006 against CC.No.119/2005 District Consumer Forum, Mahabubnagar. Between: 1.Praveen Kumar, S/o.Narayana Shambu, Aged about 30 years, R/o.H.No.15-23, Gandhinagar Colony, Shadnagar, Mahaboobnagar District. 2.Chiteeti Anusha Reddy, D/o.C.Narsimha Reddy, Aged about 25 years, Lecturer, Srinivasa Nagar Colony, Shadnagar, Mahaboobnagar District. Appellants/O.Ps. And Smt.B.Padmavathi, W/o.B.Hanmanth Rao, Aged about 55 years, Occ: Retired Teacher, R/o.H.No.19-91, Venkateswara Colony, Shadnagar, Faruqnagar (M), Mahaboobnagar District. Respondent/Complainant. FA.No.338/2006 against CC.No.120/2005 District Consumer Forum, Mahabubnagar. Between: 1.Praveen Kumar, S/o.Narayana Shambu, Aged about 30 years, R/o.H.No.15-23, Gandhinagar Colony, Shadnagar, Mahaboobnagar District. 2.Chiteeti Anusha Reddy, D/o.C.Narsimha Reddy, Aged about 25 years, Lecturer, Srinivasa Nagar Colony, Shadnagar, Mahaboobnagar District. Appellants/O.Ps. And B.Sudha Parimala, D/o.B.Hanmanth Rao, Aged about 30 years, R/o.H.No.19-91, Venkateswara Colony, Shadnagar, Faruqnagar (M), Mahaboobnagar District. Respondent/Complainant. Counsel for the Appellants : Mr.S.Krishna Sharma. Counsel for the Respondent : Mr.Kuldeep Jadhav. QUORUM: THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE D.APPA RAO, HONBLE PRESIDENT, SMT.M.SHREESHA, HONBLE LADY MEMBER, AND SRI K.SATYANAND, HONBLE MALE MEMBER.
TUESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF APRIL, TWO THOUSAND NINE.
Common Oral Order (Per Sri Justice D.Appa Rao, Honble President) *******
1. These appeals involving common questions were heard together and are being disposed of by this order.
2. The case of the complainants is that they deposited amounts under Fixed Deposit with a firm by name and style M/s.Maruthi Auto Finance. Despite the expiry of the period, they did not refund the amount with interest as per the maturity value and therefore, the complaints.
3. The appellants resisted the case. They alleged that though there were eight partners in M/s.Maruthi Auto Finance, all the partners of the firm were not impleaded despite a direction issued by Honble State Commission in FA.No.94/2005 and batch. The complainant deleted names of other partners and retained their names. They did not receive the amounts nor issued fixed deposit receipts. Therefore, they were not liable to pay amounts covered under the fixed deposits.
The complaints are misconceived and prayed for their dismissal.
4. The complainants in proof of their case filed their affidavit evidence and got Exs.A.1 to A.5 marked, viz. copy of fixed deposit receipt, copy of registration certificate, copy of legal notice, etc. The opposite parties did not file any document.
5. The District Forum after considering the evidence placed on record opined that since the opposite parties are the partners, they had to discharge the amounts covered under the fixed deposit receipts and directed them to pay with interest at 12% per annum together with costs computed atRs.500/-.
6. Aggrieved by the said order, the appeals were preferred by the opposite parties.
7. The point that arises for consideration is whether orders under the appeals are vitiated by misappreciation of facts and law?
8. It is an undisputed fact that in all these appeals, the complainants, who are respondents herein, had deposited amounts with M/s.Maruthi Auto Finance, a firm constituted under the Indian Partnership Act on 5.2.1990, evidenced under copy of the certificate of registration Ex.A.2. It is also not in dispute that there are eight partners in the partnership firm. The appellants are partners 3 and 5. It is not the case of the complainants even that the amounts were paid to the appellants, the partners 3 and 5 mentioned above, nor they issued the receipts on behalf of the firm. A perusal of fixed deposit receipts show that they were issued by the Managing Partner of the firm.
9. Earlier against the orders of the District Forum in dismissing the complaints, the very complainants preferred appeals and the State Commission remanded the matters after setting aside the orders directing the complainants to implead the other partners. No doubt, when the matters were remanded, the complainants had impleaded the other partners in the array of opposite parties. For reasons not known, later they deleted their names, maintaining the very same cause title, as earlier shown, while preferring the original complaints. In other words, the very same cause title impleading these appellants was retained leaving the partners. The fact remains that the parties as arrayed in the appeal were maintained despite the direction of this Commission to implead the other partners.
10. Be that as it may, the complainants restricted their claims against these two partners, the appellants herein, without impleading either the firm or the other partners. It is settled law that if any claim is made against the firm, necessarily it shall be filed in the name of the firm of which such persons were partners at the time of the accruing of the course of action. In fact when the names of other partners are disclosed by the certificate of registration, there is no reason why those partners, who were impleaded rightly, were deleted later. Admittedly, the complainants cannot pick and choose the parties against whom they can make a claim. In fact when the liability is joint and several, necessarily all the partners had to be impleaded. If it is filed against the firm, all the partners of the firm are liable.
Curiously, the partnership firm was not even impleaded as a party. When the deposit receipts were issued by Managing Partner, no reason was assigned for not suing him. The suit or claim cannot be made against some partners without mentioning that it was on behalf of the firm. All this discussion is unnecessary in view of the fact that the complainants could not show that the appellants alone are liable to pay leaving the other partners and more so the very firm itself.
11. We reiterate that it is not the case of the complainants that the appellants collected the amounts nor issued the deposit receipts. It is not known why the complainants had chosen to file complaints against these appellants alone. At any rate, the complainants are not entitled to sue the appellants alone in the light of the partnership Act The conduct of the complainants repeatedly making claim against these two appellants alone, without any basis is vindictive. It is misconceived.
12 In the result, the appeals are allowed setting aside the orders of the District Forum. Consequently, the complaints are dismissed. However, in the circumstances, no costs. Since by way of interim order the respondents had withdrawn the amounts which they are not entitled, the respondents are directed to redeposit the amounts and on such deposit the appellants are permitted to withdraw the same. In case, the amounts are not deposited by the respondents as per this order, the appellants are at liberty to file execution petitions and recover the same.
PRESIDENT LADY MEMBER MALE MEMBER Dt:7.4.2009.