T SHAHUL HAMEED Vs. ULLAL HARI VAMAN NAYAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -THIS appeal by opposite party Nos. 3 and 4 is directed against the order dated 26. 5. 2003 of Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore whereby they along with respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were directed to pay amount of Rs. 7,67,078. 28 along with interest up to 31. 10. 2001 and future interest at the agreed rate of 26% p. a. till date of payment to respondent No. 1/complainant.

(2.) FACTS giving rise to this appeal lie in a narrow compass. Appellants and respondent Nos. 2/opposite party No. 2 were the partners of respondent No. 3/opposite party No. 1 firm which has been carrying business as Builders and Developers. Appellants and respondent No. 2 approached respondent No. 1 and sought for fixed depsoit assuring high interest on the deposit. Respondent No. 1 issued on 29. 11. 1995 cheque bearing No. 737609 drawn on Corporation Bank in favour of respondent No. 3 of a sum of Rs. 3,00,000 which was encashed by the firm. Appellants and respondent No. 3 undertook to pay the said deposit in three yearly instalments of Rs. 1 lakh each along with interest @ 26% p. a. Towards partial payment of interest, the respondent No. 3-firm gave tax deduction at source certificates for the year 1997 for Rs. 6,537, 1998 for Rs. 7,340, 1999 for Rs. 9,057 and 2000 for Rs. 12,994. On 11. 7. 1996, the respondent No. 1 received a sum of Rs. 1,00,000 towards first instalment. On balance amount not being paid despite repeated requests and service of legal notice, the respondent No. 1 filed complaint. Though, the appellants and respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were served with notices in the complaint sufficiently but they did not appear and contest the complaint. Considering the affidavit filed by way of evidence of one of the partners of respondent No. 1 and the documents, Exs. C-1 to C-11, the complaint was allowed by the State Commission in the manner noticed above.

(3.) MAIN thrust of argument advanced by Mr. N. R. Shanker for the appellants is that (i) appellants were not served with the notices in the complaint; (ii) appellant No. 1 was not a partner of respondent No. 3-firm on the date of filing of complaint and passing of the order under appeal his having been retired as partner on 31. 3. 1999; (iii) respondent No. 3-firm was constituted for the purpose of building and developing and was not a financial institution and there was no documentary proof in regard to respondent No. 1 having deposited Rs. 3,00,000 and appellants having agreed to pay interest; and (iv) complaint under the Consumer Protection Act was not maintainable as there is no allegation made therein of deficiency in service on the part of appellants and respondent Nos. 2 and 3. We propose to examine these submissions in seriatim.