Present :      Sri. C.T. Sabu, President

                                                Smt. Sreeja. S., Member

                                                Sri. Ram Mohan R., Member

31^st day of August 2022

CC 857/17 filed on 26/12/17

Complainant         :         Hassanali P.M., Puthiyaveettil House,

                                      P.O. Vadanappilly, Thrissur.

                                      (By Adv. A.D. Benny, Thrissur)

Opposite Parties    :    1) Tradelink Chits & Financial Enterprises (P) Ltd.,

                                      Rep. by Managing Director, P.O. Kattoor, Thrissur.

                                  2) K.S. Manoj, Kuruvath House, Muttichoor,

                                      Padiyam P.O., Thrissur.

                                  3) T.A. Thomas, Thermadam House,

                                      P.O. Kattoor, Thrissur.

                                      (1^st, 2^nd & 3^rd Ex-parte)

                                  4) M.N. Sajeevan, Mullayil House, 

                                      P.O. Nattika, Thrissur.

                                      (OP 4 By Adv. K.N. Vivekanandan, Thrissur)

O R D E R

By Sri. C.T. Sabu, President :

          Facts of the Case as follows:

          The case of the complainant is that he has deposited Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) on 13/01/15 bearing receipt No.15. The amount was deposited for a term of 12 months and the opposite party assured 15 % interest p.a. for the deposited amount. The 1^st opposite party is the company and 2^nd, 3^rd and 4^th opposite parties were directors of 1^st opposite party company. The opposite parties failed to pay the deposit amount or interest on maturity as they have promised. On 22/11/17 the complainant caused a lawyer notice to the opposite parties. But they have not returned the amount liable to be paid by them. Hence this complaint.  

          2) On receiving the complaint notice issued to all the opposite parties. All together four opposite parties in this case. Except 4^th opposite party, all other opposite parties failed to appear before the Commission or filed any version. Hence the 1^st, 2^nd & 3^rd opposite parties set ex-parte. 

          3) The 4^th opposite party filed detailed version. In his version he denied all the averments in the complaint in toto. He denied the averment that the 4^th opposite party is responsible and liable to pay the deposit amount to the complainant. He was not having any knowledge about the deposit and the interest  offered by the opposite parties.  The main contention raised by the 4^th opposite party is that he was not a director during the time of the deposit by the complainant. The 4^th opposite party resigned from the company on 25/10/14 after complying all the legal formalities. At the time of his resignation company was in profit. The Director Board analysed the assets and liabilities of the company and Certified that there is no liability from the part of 4^th opposite party to the company. He was not entitled to profit share of the company also from 08/11/2014 onwards. Moreover from 25/10/14 onwards 4^th opposite party has no contact with 1^st opposite party company. So there is no deficiency in service from the side of 4^th opposite party. As he was the director of the company he had done his service without any fault and failure. He also intimated the matter of resignation from the 1^st opposite party company through publication in Mathrubhumi daily also. Hence complaint against 4^th opposite party has to be dismissed.

          4) Points for consideration :

                   1) Whether there is deficiency in service or unfair trade practice ?

                   2) If so, relief and cost ?

                   3) Whether the 4^th opposite party have any liability ?     

          5) When the case posted for evidence the complainant filed proof affidavit in which he affirmed and explained all the averments stated in the complaint in detail. He has produced 3 documents which are marked as Exts. P1 to P3. Ext. P1 is the Term Deposit Receipt dtd. 13/01/15 for Rs.1,00,000/- issued by 1^st opposite party; Ext. P2 is the copy of lawyer notice dtd.22/11/17 and Ext. P3 is the Postal Receipt. From the side of the 4^th opposite party submitted proof affidavit in which he has affirmed and explained all the contentions in tune with the version filed by him in detail. The 4^th opposite party produced 5 documents which are marked as Exts. R1 to R5. Ext. R1 is the copy of Resignation letter of the 4^th opposite party dtd. 25/10/14; Ext. R2 is the copy of Form No.DIR-11  Notice of resignation as a director to the Registrar; Ext. R3 is the copy of Form No. DIR – 12 Particulars of appointment of Directors and the key managerial personnel and the changes among them; Ext. R4 is the copy of Non liability Certificate dtd. 08/11/14 issued by the 1^st opposite party to the 4^th opposite party and Ext. R5 is the copy of advertisement in Mathrubhumi Daily .  

          6) We have gone through the contents of affidavit filed by both parties and meticulously perused the documents produced by them. Ext. P1 deposit receipt itself would go to show that the complainant has deposited Rs.1,00,000/- on 30/01/15 with the 1^st opposite party company. So it is evident that the complainant is entitled to get back the amount deposited by him with the interest @ 15% as clearly mentioned in the receipt. As per the receipt the 1^st  opposite party company is a private limited company and hence the company as well as the directors are jointly and severally liable to pay the amount to the complainant. (The principle of lifting corporate veil is applicable in this case decided by the Apex Court in 2016 KHC 6055).

          7) In this case counsel of the 4^th opposite party vehemently argued that the documents produced from their part is sufficient to prove that 4^th opposite party is not liable for any liabilities aroused after his resignation on 25/10/14. Ext. R1 documents would go to show that the 4^th opposite party submitted his resignation from company on 25/10/14. Ext. R2 documents would go to show that notice of resignation of the 4^th opposite party duly acknowledged by the Registrar of companies. Ext. R3 would go to show that the 4^th opposite party ceased to be a Director w.e.f. 27/10/14 Ext. R4 would go to show that there was no liability remained with the 4^th opposite party at the time of his resignation from the company. In abundant caution the 4^th opposite party published about to his resignation in Mathrubhumi daily also. Considering the documents produced by the 4^th opposite party it is evident that he is not at all liable for the amount of deposit of the complainant made on 13/01/15. All the other opposite parties including the company were not appeared before the Commission or filed any version. Therefore we are in the opinion that there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the 1^st, 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties. The 1^st opposite party and other directors except 4^th opposite party are liable to pay the amount deposited by the complainant with interest to the complainant. Hence we are inclined to allow this complaint.

          In the result,

          1) the complaint against 1^st to 3^rd opposite parties are allowed.

          2) The complaint against 4^th opposite party hereby dismissed.

          3) The 1^st, 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to pay the deposit and directed to pay Rs.1,00,000/- ( Rupees One lakh only) with 15% interest to the complainant from 13/01/15 till realisation of the entire amount. The complainant is also entitled Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) as cost of this complaint. The order shall be complied within one month from the date of receiving the copy of this order.

            Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Commission this the 31^st day of August 2022.

    Sd/-                                            Sd/-                                         Sd/-              

Sreeja S.                                   Ram Mohan R                         C. T. Sabu

Member                                           Member                                               President

                                                    Appendix

Complainant’s Exhibits :

Ext. P1 Term Deposit Receipt dtd. 13/01/15 for Rs.1,00,000/- issued by 1^st

              opposite party

Ext. P2 copy of lawyer notice dtd.22/11/17

Ext. P3 Postal Receipt.  

Opposite Parties’ Exhibits :                                                              

Ext. R1 copy of Resignation letter of the 4^th opposite party dtd. 25/10/14

Ext. R2 copy of Form No.DIR-11  Notice of resignation as a director to the

              Registrar

Ext. R3 copy of Form No. DIR – 12 Particulars of appointment of Directors and

              the key managerial personnel and the changes among them

Ext. R4 copy of Non liability Certificate dtd. 08/11/14 issued by the 1^st opposite

             party to the 4^th opposite party

Ext. R5 is the copy of advertisement in Mathrubhumi Daily . 

                                                                                                     Id/-                                                                                                        President