Y.KANAKA REDDY vs D.LAKSHMAMMA

THE appellants were the opposite parties before the State Commission where on a complaint filed before it by the respondents/complainants, the State Commission directed the opposite parties before it, which included the appellants also, to refund the deposited amounts under the Scheme in question along with interest @ 18% p.a. as well as the amounts for which cheques were issued by the opposite parties but not honoured by the Bank, along with rate of interest @ 18%. Cost of Rs. 5,000/- was also awarded.

BRIEF facts of the case are that the applicants being partners of M/s. Sri Shudi Sai Enterprises floated a firm helping unmarried members by financial assistance at the time of marriage. As per the scheme, admission fee was Rs. 1,000/- besides contribution of Rs. 25/- as and when a marriage of member is fixed. The firm was to pay Rs. 25,000/- in lump sum to the bride or groom at the time of marriage. The complainants became member of the scheme and contributed towards the schemes as per its terms. When the marriage of their children were fixed, the promised amounts were not paid, hence, alleging deficiency, a complaint was filed before the State Commission by the five opposite parties. Four of them refused to receive the notices and the fifth remained absent in spite of substituted service. Based on the affidavit and material on record, the State Commission passed the order outlined earlier. In the appeal filed before us, it has been argued that they were not properly served. They are very poor, illiterate and sick persons. Actual work was done by some one else i.e. respondent No. 24 who was opposite party No. 1 before the State Commission. They have no knowledge of the happenings. They have paid certain amounts to some of the members. They are not liable to pay any more amount which is the liability of respondent No. 24. They are very poor, hence the appeal be allowed and responsibility be fixed on respondent No. 24. We have seen the material on record and heard the arguments. State Commission is quite categorical that the applicant in F.A. No. 87 of 2002 was served through substituted service and the appellant in F.A. No. 109 of 2002 refused to receive notice. It is too late in the day to take a plea that they were not properly served. We are not considering the health on economic status of the applicants. There is no rebuttal that they were partners of the firm floated and said amounts were received by the firm and not paid to the complainants as per terms of the scheme. It is quite clear that the appellants ailed to perform as per terms of the scheme causing financial loss and mental agony to the complainants. What the State Commission has ordered is to refund the initial deposit of Rs. 1,000/- each and the amounts deposited from time-to-time by the members of the scheme, along with interest @ 18% p.a. The order of the State Commission suffers from no infirmity to call for our interference, hence upheld. These two appeals filed before us stand dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs.