State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sub Ajit Singh vs Krishan Lal on 7 March, 2011
J&K STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JAMMU Quorum: Honble Mr., Justice (Retd) G.D.Sharma, .President Mr. B.L.Saraf .....Member
Complaint No: - 3200/2010 Date of Institute: - 03.08.2010 Date of Decision: - 07.03.2011
1. Sub Ajit Singh(Retd) S/O Late Shri Mangal Singh
2. Smt. AK Assad (Smt. Amrit Kaur) W/O Sub Ajit Singh(Retd
3. Smt. Amrit Kaur W/O Sub Ajit Singh(Retd
4. Smt. Amro Kaur (Smt. Amrit Kaur) C/O Sub Ajit Singh(Retd
5. Miss Jasbir Kaur D/O Sub Ajit Singh(Retd
6. S Avtar Singh S/O Sub Ajit Singh(Retd
7. S AS Assad (Avtar Singh) S/O Sub Ajit Singh(Retd
8. S Balvinder Singh S/O Sub Ajit Singh(Retd
9. Smt. Jeet Kaur (Daughter in Law) C/O Sub Ajit Singh(Retd
10. Mr. Kuku (S.Balvinder Singh) C/O Sub Ajit Singh(Retd
11. Miss Jassi (Jasbir Kaur) D/O Sub Ajit Singh(Retd
12. Smt. Amro (Smt. Amrit Kaur) C/O Sub Ajit Singh(Retd
13. Miss Harvinder Kaur D/O Sub Ajit Singh(Retd
14. Smt. Amar Kaur (Smt. Amrit Kaur) C/O Sub Ajit Singh(Retd
15. Sh Sukhwant Singh (Son in law) C/O Sub Ajit Singh(Retd
16. Miss Mona (Smt. Bhajan Kaur) D/O Sub Ajit Singh(Retd
17. Smt Bhajan Kaur D/O Sub Ajit Singh(Retd
18. Master Sahil (Minor, Grand Son) through Sub Ajit Singh(Retd
19. Master Gagan Deep Singh (Minor, Grand Son) through Sub Ajit Singh(Retd
20. Master Sukhdeep Singh (Minor, Grand Son) through Sub Ajit Singh(Retd
21. Miss Jasmeet Kaur (Minor, Grand Daughter) through Sub Ajit Singh(Retd
22. Miss Sahily (Minor, Grand Daughter) through Sub Ajit Singh(Retd
23. Master Gagadeep Singh (Minor, Grand Son) through Sub Ajit Singh(Retd
24. Master Kawaldeep Singh (Minor, Grant Son) through Sub Ajit Singh(Retd Versus
1. Krishan Lal S/O Late Shri Rollhu Ram, Partner of M/S Chaoudhary Chhamb Finance Corp. & M/S SK Chhamb Trading Corp. Shop No.20 Nehru Market, Jammu
2. Mr Kallu Ram S/O Late Shri Rollhu Ram Partner of M/S Chaoudhary Chhamb Finance Corp. & M/S SK Chhamb Trading Corp. Shop No.20 Nehru Market, Jammu
3. Mr. Deepak S/O Shri Krishan Lal, Partner of M/S Chaoudhary Chhamb Finance Corp. & M/S SK Chhamb Trading Corp. Shop No.20 Nehru Market, Jammu
4. M/S Choudhary Chhamb Motor Finance Corp Shop No.20, Nehru Market, Jammu
5. M/S SK Chhamb Trading Corp 20 Mini Shopping Complex, Nehru Market, Jammu
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Counsel for the parties Mr. Jugal Kishore advocate for the Complainants.
Mr. Nitin Gupta advocate vice Mr. K.S Chauhan advocate for the OPs.
__________________________________________________________________________ Whether to be reported in press /MediaNo Whether to be reported in Digest/Journal.No
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Per Justice G.D.Sharma (Oral)
1. This is a complaint in which the allegation is made against the OPs that they were carrying on the business of Finance by way of accepting deposits on interest and complainants had deposited the amounts on various occasions on the assurances for getting the interest at the rate of specified rates but the OPs have failed to return the amounts of original deposits as well as the amounts of interest accrued thereon. The OPs have raised the preliminary objections regarding the mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties as well as on the plea that cause of action is not the same against OPs 4 and 5. The other objections taken are not of much legal significance.
2. Heard the arguments.
3. Mr. Jugal Kishore, the learned counsel appearing for the complainants has admitted that there is some technical defects in filing the complaint such as OPs 4 and 5 are different Firms having different partners carrying on the alleged business. He also admits the wrong mentioning of the name of OP no.2 because the complaint according to him was drafted by the complainants themselves. The learned counsel appearing in proxy for the OPs has submitted that the complaint in the present form is not maintainable.
4. We have considered the respective submissions and find that there are different causes of action against different parties. Hence we find that the complaint in the present form is not maintainable and is dismissed. But the complainants are at liberty to file a fresh complaint in accordance with law.
Member President