KAKAUSTAM RAGHUNATHAM Vs. POLASANI RAMA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these revision petitions have been filed by the petitioner, who was opposite party No. 4 in two separate consumer disputes No. 32 & 33 of 2005 before the District Forum. Challenge in these revision petitions is to two separate but similar impugned orders passed by the A. P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad ('State Commission' for short) on 19.2.2007 in F. A. Nos. 19 & 20 of 2007. Issues involved in both these revision petitions being similar, they are being disposed of by this common order.

(2.) Factual matrix in respect of the two revision petitions may be stated as under: -

(3.) While OPs 1 to 4 remained ex-parte before the District Forum, OP No. 4, petitioner herein, did file a counter affidavit denying the allegations made in the complaint and stating that the OPs did not establish any finance company under the name and style of M/s Hindusree Securities (Bharat) Limited and that the OPs are not Managing Director and Directors of the said company nor they issued any fixed deposit certificates to the complainants. It was prayed that the complaint be dismissed since there is no obligation on him to pay the maturity value to the complainant.