By Sri.P.K,.Sasi, President
The case of the complainant is that she has joined in a kuri conducted by the 1st opposite party from their office having Ticket No.34 with sala Rs.1,00,000/- on 10/5/2014. Total instalments are 40 with Rs.2,500/- per instalment. She has paid 26 instalments without any default. And the total amount paid by the complainant is Rs.65,000/-. After that she could not continue the kuri since the opposite parties stopped the functioning of kuri company from July 2016. And the kuri amount was not paid by the opposite parties. The act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice. The opposite party Nos.2 to 4 are being the directors having direct involvement in the functioning of the company. Therefore, they are liable to pay the amount with 12% interest to the complainant. So the complainant demanded on 22/5/2017 to return back the amount paid. But no relief received. Hence this complaint is filed.
2. On receiving the complaint, notice was issued to all the opposite parties. But except 3rd opposite party others neither appeared before the Forum nor submitted any version. Hence the opposite parties 1,2& 4 set exparte. 3rd opposite party appeared through counsel and filed detailed version. According to the contesting opposite party however, he was a director of the company; he has submitted his resignation and ceased his directorship from the company with effect from 25/10/14. The 3rd opposite party further submitted that the allegations raised in the complaint regarding the kuri transactions made by the complainant is not known to the 3rd opposite party since he was not having any involvement with the day today affairs of the company. He further submitted that the company has issued the non-liability certificate to him by accepting his resignation. He also submitted that he has informed to all the customers regarding his resignation by means of paper publication. He further submitted that he has not committed any sort of deficiency in service or unfair trade practice towards the complainant and prayed for the dismissal of the complaint against him.
3. Then the case was posted for evidence and the points for consideration are that :
1) Whether there was any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice happened on the part of opposite parties?
2) Whether OP3 is liable to pay any compensation ?
3) If so what costs and reliefs ?
4. From the side of complainant, she has appeared before the Forum and submitted proof affidavit, in which she has affirmed and explained all the averments stated in the complaint in detail. She has also produced 4 documents which are marked as Exts.P1 to P4. Ext.P1 kuri pass book, Ext.P2 is copy of lawyer notice dtd. 22/5/2017, Ext.P3 series are postal receipts (3 Nos) and Ext.P4 series are returned notices (3 Nos.). From the side of contesting opposite party, he has appeared before the Forum and filed counter proof affidavit, in which he has affirmed and described all the contentions raised in his version in detail. He has also produced 5 documents which are marked as Exts.R1 to R5. Ext.R1 is copy of resignation letter dated 25/10/14, Ext.R2 is copy of Form No.DIR-11 submitted before the Registrar of Companies, Ext.R3 is copy of Form DIR-12 submitted before Registrar of Companies, Ext.R4 is copy of non-liability certificate issued from the 1st opposite party company and Ext.R5 is copy of paper publication. We heard both sides in detail.
5. According to the complainant she has joined in a kuri in the company conducted by the opposite parties. Whereas the contesting opposite party submitted that he cannot be held liable since he has resigned from his directorship.
6. We have gone through the contents of affidavits filed and perused the documents produced from both sides. Ext.P1 kuri pass book would go to show that the complainant has paid 26 instalments. And the total amount is Rs.65,000/-.
7. The documents produced from the side of contesting opposite party would go to show that he has resigned from the directorship of the company with effect from 25/10/14. Ext.R4 is a non-liability letter issued by the company to the contesting opposite party. Since there is no contra evidence adduced from the part of company and other directors, we are inclined to accept the proof affidavit filed by the complainant. Hence we are of the opinion that the complainant is entitled to get the deposit amount with interest from the company. By denying that, the company has committed deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice towards the complainant. Hence 1st point answered accordingly.
8. Regarding the liability of the contesting opposite party No.3, the documents produced by him would go to show that he is not a director of the company with effect from 25/10/14 and therefore there may not be any direct involvement on his part in the day to day affairs of the company. Moreover, Ext.R4 is a non-liability certificate issued to the 3rd opposite party by the company. Considering all these points, 3rd opposite party cannot be held liable for and on behalf of the company.
9 In the result we allow this complaint and being a private limited company, the 1st opposite party is directed to return Rs..65,000/- (Rupees Sixty five thousand only) with 12% interest from the date of complainant to the complainant within one month from receiving copy of this order. Failing which the complainant is entitled to get 12% interest for all those amount till realization.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum this the 26th day of December 2019.
Sd/- Sd/-
Dr.K.Radhakrishnan Nair P.K.Sasi, Member President.
Appendix
Complainant’s Exhibits
Exts.P1 Kuri pass book
Ext.P2 copy of lawyer notice
Ext.P3 Postal receipts
Ext.P4 Returned notices
Opposite Party’s Exhibits
Ext.R1 copy of resignation letter dated 25/10/14
Ext.R2 copy of Form No.DIR-11
Ext.R3 copy of Form DIR-12
Ext.R4 copy of non-liability certificate
Ext.R5 copy of paper publication
Id/-
President
