GAMPA BHASKAR Vs. GUDISE RAVINDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the order in C.C.No.107/2008 on the file of District Forum, Karimnagar, the opposite party preferred this appeal.

(2.) The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant joined the opposite party scheme and invested amounts under the fixed deposit scheme introduced by their firm, Sri Vidya Chits and Finance (Registered) JagItial as he was assured by the opposite party that his deposit amount would be doubled. Opposite party issued the following F.D.Rs. Sl.No FDR No Deposited Amount Maturity Amount Maturity Date 1 0550 Rs.1,000/- Rs.2,000/- 15.09.1997 2 0550 Rs.1,000/- Rs.2,000/- 15.09.1997 3 0550 Rs.1,000/- Rs.2,000/- 15.09.1997 4 0550 Rs.1,000/- Rs.2,000/- 15.09.1997 5 0550 Rs.1,000/- Rs.2,000/- 15.09.1997 Total Rs.5,000/- Rs.10,000/- with a maturity date as 15-9-1997. After expiry of the maturity period, the complainant approached the opposite party but found the office closed, so he approached the opposite party who assured him that he would pay the maturity value of the F.D.Rs. within a period of one year. But inspite of repeated requests, he failed to pay the amounts and the complainant got issued legal notice dated 27-5-2008 which was received by the opposite party and he also issued a reply notice on 13-6-2008. Vexed with their attitude the complainant approached the Forum seeking direction to the opposite party to pay the maturity amounts together with interest, compensation and costs.

(3.) Opposite party filed counter submitting that Sri Vidya Chits and Finance Firm was formed with 10 partners of whom the complainant's grandfather G.Rajamouli is also one of the partner's and as per the terms of the partnership deed, every partner has to deposit his capital amount and also gather members and fix their amounts under F.D.Rs. The complainant herein deposited the amount through his grand father. Opposite party submits that the said firm was closed in the year 1997 and the said Rajamouli, i.e complainant's grandfather is alone responsible for the alleged amount. If the firm had committed any fault, the complainant ought to have filed this complaint against all the partners of the said firm including his grand father who is also a partner and therefore there is no deficiency in service on his behalf.