GURMEET SINGH Vs. RAKESH KUMAR SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 22.9.2000 passed by District Consumer Forum-I, Bareilly in Complaint Case No.818/1993.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the complainant Sri Rakesh Kumar Sharma deposited an amount of Rs.5,000/- on 31.10.1987 with the opposite party No.01, M/s. Jeet Finance, Bareilly. The said opposite party is engaged in the business of Finance and Banking. The other opposite parties are partners of the said firm and, therefore, liable for the acts and liabilities of the said firm. The deposit was made vide Receipt No.478. Again on 4.1.1988 the complainant further deposited an amount of Rs.5,000/- vide Receipt No.501 with the opposite party No.1. Both these deposits were made for interest at the rate of 18% per annum and the amount in question was liable to be refunded back along with the interest at the rate of 18% per annum. The complainant time and again approached the opposite parties for refund of the amount with interest but the opposite parties postponed the matter of payment on one pretext or the other. There is, therefore, a clear deficiency on the part of the opposite party. A legal notice was also sent to the opposite party on 1.6.1993 but some of the opposite parties returned the notice and some of them acknowledged the liability to the extent of their respective share only. In accordance with the law every partner is jointly and severally responsible for meeting the liability. The cause of action for filing the complaint arose on 6.7.1993 when the reply of the notice was received by the complainant at Bareilly. The complainant, therefore, filed a claim before the District Consumer Forum praying that the amount of Rs.10,000/- deposited by the complainant along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum be allowed to him. An amount of Rs.2,000/- as cost and damages were also claimed. The complainant has also filed an affidavit in support of his complaint along with copies of the F. D. Rs. as detailed in the beginning of this judgment.

(3.) In the written version before the District Consumer Forum, the opposite party Sri Gurmeet Singh stated that he is the partner of the firm M/s. Jeet Financier. The said firm has been closed and the amount deposited by the complainant should be recovered from the property of M/s. Jeet Financier. It was also stated that all the partners of the firm should be made parties in the case. The accounts of the firm are in possession of Smt. Gurdeep Kaur wife of Sri Amarjeet Singh and the liabilities of the depositors can be liquidated only by appointment of a Receiver. A joint written statement of opposite party Nos.3, 4 and 5 was also filed before the District Forum in which the amount deposited in terms of the two F. D. Rs. has been admitted. The partners in the firm were Sri Gurmeet Singh, Sri Hardeo Singh, Sri Gurubaksha Singh and Smt. Gurdeep Kaur. The firm was closed in the year 1990 and since then no effective working or transactions have taken place. It was also contended that the complaint is bad for non joinder of the partners Smt. Gurdeep Kaur, Smt. Amrit Kaur and Smt. Usha Arora who are also partners of the said firm and are equally liable to make the payment. The opposite parties are only liable to the extent of their shares and rest of the amount should be recovered from Smt. Gurdeep Kaur, Smt. Amrit Kaur and Smt. Usha Arora.