CH DEVENDER REDDY Vs. KAALVA MAHESWAR REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -CHALLENGE in this revision is to the order dated 25. 10. 2007 of A. P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad dismissing appeal against the order dated 3. 12. 2005 of a District Forum whereby petitioners along with respondent Nos. 3 and 4 were directed to pay amount of Rs. 3,50,000 with interest @ 12% from 1. 4. 2002 to respondent No. 1 and Rs. 3,00,000 with interest at the said rate and from the date to respondent No. 2.

(2.) RESPONDENT No. 1 alleged that he had deposited with M/s. Lokabandhu Financiers, respondent No. 3/opposite party No. 1 a sum of Rs. 3,50,000 on 1. 4. 2002 against a fixed deposit receipt. Amount of Rs. 3,00,000 was stated to have been deposited by respondent No. 2 with the said partnership firm on the said date for which he obtained a fixed deposit receipt. Firm agreed to pay interest @ 24% p. a. on the deposits. On amount of two FDRs not being returned along with interest despite repeated reminders, the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 got a legal notice dated 7. 10. 2003 served and thereafter filed complaint before the District Forum. Complaint was contested by filing separate written versions by the petitioners and respondent No. 4. It was alleged by them that they were sleeping partners and not aware of Jithender Reddy, Managing Partner of the firm having received the deposits from respondent Nos. 1 and 2. It was stated that the two FDRs had been fabricated and complaint filed in connivance with said Jithender Reddy.

(3.) SUBMISSION advanced by Mr. P. Venkat Reddy for the petitioners is three fold: (i) that under the agreement/award (copy at pages 9 and 10) it is Jithender Reddy who is to pay the amount to respondent Nos. 1 and 2, (ii) that complaint was bad in law on ground of Jithender Reddy not being arrayed as a party in the complaint, (iii) that a complaint under 'the Andhra Pradesh Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishment Act, 1999 ' was made by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and the District Collector/superintendent of Police did not find any substance for proceeding against the petitioners under the provisions of the said Act.