SHANTI DEVI Vs. LUXMI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is against the order of the District Forum, Hissar, whereby it has been directed that the appellants refund the amount of Rs.2,300/- to each of the complainant-respondents alongwith interest @ 18% per annum.

(2.) The respondents in the complaint preferred by them alleged that the firm of M/s Prem Chand and Company (Regd. No.1057) had floated the Manoj 's Saving Scheme at Hissar. Sh. Prem Chand was the Manager of the said partnership concern, who unfortunately died on and around 23rd Feb, 1988. The five appellants were alleged to be the partners of the firm aforesaid and consequently responsible for the liabilities thereof. It was the case that an invitation had been extended to the public to become the members of the Manoj Saving Scheme and to deposit their savings to attract somewhat lavish returns therefore. The complainants enrolled themselves as the members of the said scheme vide Sr. Nos.160, 188, 189 and 190 respectively and deposited a sum of Rs.2,300/- each, in due course @ Rs.100/- per month from Feb, 1987 to Dec, 1988. Further the allegations leveled were that after the death of Sh. Prem Chand, his widow Shanti Devi alongwith the appellant partners had taken possession of the entire record and assets of the said scheme and had misappropriated the deposits thereof but were not taking over the liabilities of the same to refund the amount (to the members) duly deposited by them. Further suggestions that from the very inspection, the complainants and the other members of the public were inveigled into a scheme regarding which they were kept in total darkness were also made. The primal grievance was that the complainant respondents had been deprived of their hard earned savings which had been misappropriated by the appellants and the relief sought was not only the refund of the deposited amounts but the alleged matured amount of Rs.5,500/- in each case.

(3.) On notice being served on the appellants, they filed a joint and consolidated reply, where in a part from raising preliminary objections the gravaman of their stand was a total specious denial of virtually each and every averment of the complaint. In the replication filed on behalf of the respondents, they reiterated their claim by further elaborating the same.