CourtKutchehry.com
Tribunals and Commissions(1994) 02 NCDRC CK 0049

D.B.S. NARAYANA MURTHY vs I. VENUGOPAL

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission · Decided on 18 February 1994 · Citation: 1994 3 CPJ 196 : 1995 1 CPR 733

HON’BLE JUDGES
A.Venkatarami Reddy , J.Ananda Lakshmi , C.V.Subba Reddy J.
RESULT
Appeal allowed

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

3 paragraphs · 360 words
1.

THE District Forum passed an order allowing the complaint in part directing the Opposite Party No. 4 to recover from Opposite Party Nos. 1 and 3; and Opposite Party Nos. 1 and 3 are directed to pay to Opposite Party No. 4 the amount due towards instalments from August, 1987 to July, 1988 with interest on unpaid instalments. THE Opposite Party No. 4 is directed to recover from Opposite Party No. 1 and the Opposite Party No. 1 is directed to pay to the Opposite Party No. 4 the remaining amount of loan said to be still due by the complainant in his loan account maintained by Opposite Party No. 4 and the Opposite Party No. 1 is further directed to pay to the complainant Rs. 1,000.00 towards the costs of the complaint.

2.

IT is a case where there is an agreement to provide televisions to the employees. According to the case of the complainant, from the first Opposite Party they have purchased the televisions on instalment basis. The loan was supposed to be advanced by the Syndicate Bank, that is, Opposite Party No. 4. The District Forum, on a consideration of the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that although the price of the television was Rs. 2,000/-, the Opposite Party No. 1 had misused the bank loan documents to borrow Rs. 3,600/-. It, therefore, directed the Opposite Party No. 1 to pay the amount as mentioned above.

Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, this appeal is preferred by Opposite Party No. 1. It is submitted that Mr. D.B.S. Narayana Murthy is not a partner of the first Opposite Party. But it is to be seen that he represented the first Opposite Party and he did not raise any objection that he is not a partner of the firm. In any event, the complainants are directed first to proceed against the partnership firm and assets and also other partners till the amount is realised and they proceed against Mr. D.B.S. Narayana Murthy for realisation of the amounts, if any. With the aforesaid clarification, the appeal is disposed of. No Costs. Appeal allowed in part.