C.D.No. 74 / 2007
BETWEEN:
Kedarnath Sahu, S/o.late Padamah Sahu, Age 40 years, GUMADA Village, Rayagadha District, Orissa State. ...Complainant.

AND:
01) Srinidhi Enterprises (Regd.), Rep. by its Managing Partner, Sindri Madanamohana Rao,
S/o.not known, Chittaranjan Street, Srikakulam.
02) Srinidhi Enterprises (Regd.), rep.by its Executive Partner, Andhavarapu Krishnamurthy,
S/o.Ramanayya (Gavarayya), Chittaranjan Street, Srikakulam .
03) Srinidhi Enterprises (Regd.), rep.by its Executive Partner, Killamsetty Ramesh,
S/o.Narayana Rao, Chittaranjan Street, Srikakulam .
04) Srinidhi Enterprises (Regd.), rep.by its Partner, Boyina Vasanthakumari,
W/o.Ramakameswar Rao, Chittaranjan Street, Srikakulam . ….. opposite parties

This complaint coming on 30-01-2009 for final hearing before us in the presence of Sri M.V.N.Murty, Advocate for complainant and opposite party Nos.1 and 4 absent and Sri Venkatesh Vyas, Advocate for opposite party No.2 and Sri B.Nageswara Rao, Advocate for opposite party No.3 and having stood over to this day for consideration, this Forum made the following:

O R D E R

This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and facts of the case briefly are as follows:
Opposite party Nos. 1 to 4 are partners of a registered partnership firm doing finance business. The partnership firm launched a scheme by name mutual benefit fund and the complainant contributed an amount of Rs.500/- per month for 16 months and the partnership firm issued a bond-cum-receipt stating all the particulars of the scheme, payment, maturity amount and maturity date. After maturity of the scheme, complainant approached opposite parties at Srikakulam but it was closed. Complainant came to know that the opposite parties’ firm is bogus. Complainant issued a notice to the opposite parties firm. Hence complaint is filed for a direction to the opposite parties to pay maturity amount of Rs.11,000/- with interest and compensation of Rs.10,000/- and costs of Rs.5,000/-.


2) Opposite party No.3 filed counter stating that the firm was registered, but due to some misunderstanding the firm was dissolved. Before dissolving the firm, the total subscribers were divided into four groups and each partner was allotted certain group of subscribers to discharge the dues to the respective subscribers. The present complainant was allotted to opposite party No.4. It is further stated that whereabouts of the complainant is not known.

Opposite party No.3 filed additional counter stating that this Forum has no jurisdiction.
Opposite party No.2 filed memo adopting the counter filed by opposite party No.3.
Opposite party Nos.1 and 4 remained absent.


3) Complainant and opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 filed affidavits. Exs.A1 to A4 are marked on behalf of the complainant. No documents are marked on behalf of the opposite parties.

Heard complainant and opposite party Nos.2 and 3.
Point for consideration is:
Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.


4) Point:
Complainant filed affidavit with the same facts contained in the complaint. Opposite party Nos.2 and 3 filed affidavits with the same facts contained in the counter. Opposite party No.3 in his counter stated that the firm was dissolved and opposite party NO.4 is liable to pay the amount to the complainant as per the agreement among the partners of the firm. The case of the complainant is not denied by the opposite parties. Ex.A1 is cash certificate issued by the opposite parties firm in favour of the complainant. An amount of Rs.11,000/- was payable to the complainant by the opposite parties as on 24-9-2002. But the opposite parties firm was dissolved. The partners of the firm i.e, opposite parties 1 to 4 are liable to pay the said amount irrespective of the agreement among them. Complaint was filed on 7-9-2004 and it was returned on 30-10-2004. Complainant re-presented the complaint on 17-4-2007. The delay in re-presenting the complaint was condoned.


5) Complainant was cross-examined. It is suggested to him that he filed the complaint with the collusion of opposite party No.1. It is suggested to him that he did not sign in the complaint and vakalat. Opposite parties tried to defend by making allegation that PW-1 is not the complainant. But the opposite parties are not able to prove that PW-1 is not the complainant. Opposite parties 1 to 4 are liable to pay the amount to the complainant irrespective of the agreement among opposite parties 1 to 4. We therefore hold that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in not paying the amount to the complainant. Hence we answer the point accordingly.


In the result, complaint is allowed. Opposite parties 1 to 4 are directed to pay Rs.11,000/- (Rupees eleven thousand only) to the complainant with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of maturity i.e., 24-9-2002 till the date of payment and costs of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only). Advocate’s fee is fixed at Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only).