K KASI ANNAPURNA Vs. VEMURI BHARATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two appeals by 3 out of 10 opposite parties are directed against the common order dated 7.6.94 of the Andhra Prasesh State Commission at Hyaderbad in CD. Nos. 51/93 and 96/93 before it, allowing the two complaints and directing opposite parties to refund the various amounts of deposit made by the respective complainants with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from various specified dates with costs of Rs. 500/ - to each complainant but disallowing the claim of exemplary damages.

(2.) SINCE the Appellants do not question the quantum determination, it is not necessary to notice facts in detail. The Appellants herein who were opposite party Nos. 4 to 6 in the complaint had only contested the claim mainly on the ground 'that they were not partners of M/s. Vijaya Credit Corporation, and their names had been included fictitiously and under forged signatures and that there was collusion between the Complainants and the said Corporation. The partnership firm and other partners except opposite party No. 9 did not contest the claim made in the two complaints and remained ex -parte before the State Commission. The case of the complainants is that they deposited or renewed deposits of certain specified amounts with opposite party No. 1 -M/s. Vijaya Credit Corporation, a partnership firm of opposite party Nos. 2 to 10, but the opposite parties failed to repay the amount on maturity despite repeated demands and in fact certain cheques issued for repayment also bounced. The State Commission found that opposite parties are carrying on business of accepting deposits on interest and dealing in money lending business and had accepted the various deposits from the complainants under written agreements. It is well settled that the failure to refund the amounts deposited with any financial institution on maturity will amount to deficiency in service. The State Commission found that the opposite party Nos. 4 to 6 except stating that some fraud was committed and their signatures were forged and that their names were not existing in the partnership deed, did not call for the original partnership deed from the Managing Partner nor did they obtain the copy of the original partnership deed and produce the same before the State Commission to show that they are not partners of the partnership firm. Their plea that some fraud was committed and on account of the fraud their signatures were forged by the other partners, was not substantiated before the State Commission. The State Commission evaluated the material on record in respect of each Complainant of the quantum of deposit made and due as also the date of payment of interest and granted the reliefs to each of the Complainants with interest.

(3.) THE complainants had placed on record certified copy of the Form 'A' issued by the Registrar of Firms. It is a copy of the record of the entry in a Register called the Register of Firms maintained under Section 59 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932. Serial number of the Registration No. is 3610 of 1981, registered on 127.81 with the names and addresses of the partners including the three Appellants who become partners of the firm w.e.f. 1.7.85. This certified copy was obtained on 3.8.91. Sub -section (ii) of Section 58 of the said Act lays down the manner in which registration of a firm may be effected. The statement filed contains, inter alia, the names in full and permanent addresses of the partners and each person signing the statement has also to verify it in the prescribed manner. It is only after the satisfaction of the Registrar that the provisions of Section 58 of the said Act have been compiled with that the Registrar records an entry in the Register of Firms. The proof of the registration of the partnership firm and the names and particulars of the partners is by tendering a certified copy of the Form 'A' by which the complainants had established on record that the Appellants were partners at relevant time. The State Commission rightly held that fraud and forgery was not established before it. Neither particulars/details of fraud had been mentioned in the reply version, nor any proof was tendered of the alleged fraud. The appellants version that some fraud was committed and their signatures were forged by the other partners, is not established by any evidence on record. The presumption of correctness of the entries contained in Form 'A' is not rebutted at all.