Amteshwar Anand vs DOLVAN HOME MAKER PVT.LTD

BRIEFLY the complainant''s case that she entered into an agreement with respondent No. 1, M/s. Dolvan Home Maker Pvt. Ltd. for getting her farm house renovated. Respondent No. 2 is alleged to be the Director of respondent No. 1. She paid Rs. 49,000/- to the respondents towards the labour charges and gave to them material worth Rs. 2,000/- for renovation. It is alleged that the renovation as agreed has not been made by the respondents. Consequently she filed the present complaint, praying that the respondents be directed to refund Rs. 51,000/- and to pay compensation @ 15,000/- P.M. w.e.f. 15th July''90 on account of loss of rental income and Rs. 20,000/- for causing mental torture to the complainant. In the alternative she claimed that the respondents be directed to make the renovation as agreed between the parties.

THE complaint has been contested by the respondent. THEy have inter-alia pleaded that respondent No. 1 is not a limited concern but is a registered partnership concern and therefore, no complaint is maintainable against it. It is further pleaded that M/s. Dolvan Home Makers, the registered partnership firm, has instituted a Civil Suit for recovery of Rs. 47,000/- against the complainant for the work done by them in the farm house. THEy have also pleaded that the complainant is not a ''consumer''. It is pleaded, that in this situation, the complaint is not maintainable. On 10.5.91 we ordered that the parties shall argue the matter on the following preliminary matters:- 1. Whether the defendant is not a limited concern and the complaint is not maintainable against it? 2. Whether any suit regarding this matter is pending between the parties in the Civil Court and with what effect? 3. Whether the complainant is a consumer?

Point No. 1. The counsel for the respondents has brought to our notice para 1A of the written statement and para 2 of the affidavit dated 26.6.91 (page-117) of Shri H.S. Bhagat, partner M/s. Dolvan Home Makers Pvt. Ltd. It is stated by the respondents in the written statement that M/s. Dolvan Home Maker Pvt. Ltd. is a partnership firm, inter-alia engaged in the business of Civil Engineering contracts and construction, repair and renovation work. Respondent No. 2 is one of the partners of the firm. In para 2 of the affidavit it has been explained as to why M/s. Dolvan Home Maker was not got registered as a limited concern. It is stated therein that the partners wanted it to be a limited concern but they changed their mind at the instance of their Chartered Accountant and consequently constituted it as a partnership concern. They also got it registered on 10.1.91 with the Registrar of Firms. From the aforesaid averments it is evident that respondent M/s. Dolvan Home Makers is a registered firm and not a limited company. The learned Counsel for the complainant has brought to our notice letter of the respondents dated 16th June'' 90, estimate dated Nil, revised estimate dated Nil and notice of the complainant is dated 14.12.90 and its reply dated 25.12.90. The letter of the respondent and the estimates are on the letter-heads in which M/s. Dolvan Home Makers is shown as a limited concern. In the reply to the notice again it is shown as a limited concern. In one of the paras of the written statement also it has been shown as a limited concern. However, in the affidavit of Shri Bhagat the explanation has been given in this regard. The learned Counsel for the complainant has not been able to file any document from the Registrar of the Companies showing that respondent No. 1 was registered as a limited concern. It respondent No. 1 was a limited concern it was not difficult for her to obtain a copy of the certificate of registration from the Office of the Registrar. In the circumstances there are no grounds to disbelieve the affidavit and the averments made by the respondent in the written statement. Consequently we hold that M/s. Dolvan Home Makers is a partnership concern and the complainant cannot institute a complaint against respondent No. 1. We asked the counsel for the complainant to make an amendment in the complaint but he refuses to do so. Faced with this situation the learned counsel for the complainant says that the complaint may be treated to have been filed against respondent No. 2. The complainant against respondent No. 2 has been filed as an Executive Director of the Company. He is also not ready to delete the name of respondent No. 1 from the array of the respondent and amend the complaint. In the circumstances we are of the opinion that the complaint is not maintainable against respondent No. 1 as well. Point Nos. 2 & 3 In view of the circumstance that the complaint is not maintainable against the respondents, point Nos. 2 & 3 do not arise. For the aforesaid reasons we dismiss the complaint is not maintainable. No order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.