GAJINGI SRINIVASA RAO Vs. ADULA LAXMI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As per averments made in the Complaint, the husband of the complainant-respondent No. l herein, during his life-time, had deposited Rs. 30,000 on 15.7.1996 and 14.8.1996 in Navodaya Hire Purchase Financiers, Jagitial (for short the Firm ) with date of maturity as 14.7.2002 and 13.8.2002 and maturity value as Rs. 60,000. Opposite Party No. 2-petitioner herein was working as Managing Director and Opposite Party No. 1-respondent No. 2 herein was working as Managing Partner of the Firm, at the relevant time. Opposite parties issued Fixed Deposit Receipts bearing Nos. 501, 502, 504, 554, 556 and 558 and when the complainant demanded the maturity value from the Opposite Parties, they refused to pay the same on the ground that the Firm was closed in the year 1997.

(2.) Being aggrieved, complainant filed the Complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Karimnagar (for short the District Forum ) praying for a direction to the opposite parties to pay the maturity value of Rs. 60,000 with interest @ 12% and Rs. 1,000 as costs.

(3.) On being served, respondent No. 2 remained ex parte and Counsel for the petitioner filed the counter stating that he was neither the Member nor Partner of Navodaya Hire Purchase and Financiers, Jagitial. That the petitioner had not issued the Fixed Deposit Certificates to the complainant. That the Certificates filed by the complainant were forged. That the son of the complainant had signed the Deposit Certificates in the capacity of Managing Partner which shows that the complaint had been filed to extract money from the petitioner. That the son of the complainant is also a Partner and is liable to share the profits and losses of the Firm. That the Finance Company is not in existence and, therefore, the question of refunding the maturity amount by the petitioner did not arise. That since the complainant s son signed the Deposit Certificates, no cause of action accrues to the complainant to file the complaint. Denying the allegations made in the complaint, petitioner prayed for dismissal of the complaint.