ANNAPURNA B. UPPIN & ORS. [APPELLANTS] Vs. MALSIDDAPPA & ANR.  [RESPONDENTS]

CIVIL APPEAL ARISING OUT OF SLP (C.) NO.11757 OF 2022

(2JB, VIKRAM NATH and SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA JJ., delivered by VIKRAM NATH, J.)

Facts: The present appeal assails the correctness of the order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission1 dated 01.04.2022 passed in Revision Petition No.161 of 2022, titled Smt. Annapurna B. Uppin and three others vs. Sh. Malsiddappa and another, whereby the revision was dismissed and the order passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal and the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum3 allowing the complaint of respondent No.1 and directing the Opposite Parties No.1 to 5 therein to be jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.5 lakhs along with simple interest @ 18% p.a. from 21.05.2002 to 20.05.2012 with further interest @ 6% p.a. from 21.05.2012 onwards till realisation.

Issue: Whether the legal heirs of the deceased partner could be impleaded as opposite parties for recovery of money from the firm?

Arguments on behalf of counsel for appellants:

It is the specific case of the appellants that they were never a part of the partnership firm either as partners or in any other capacity. Later on, by another unregistered deed of partnership, the firm was re-constituted wherein three partners have resigned from the firm which included the complainant – respondent No.1. Subsequently, the registered partnership deed came into force on 27.05.1996, which included all the five partners who were part of the first unregistered partnership deed dated 16.02.1994All the three partnership deeds, the two unregistered ones and third the registered one are filed as Annexures P1, P2 and P3 respectively.

Arguments on behalf of counsel for respondents:

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No.1, the contesting respondent, made the following submissions: That the present appeal is not maintainable in view of the recent judgment of this Court in the case of Universal Sompo General Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Suresh Chand Jain and Another wherein this Court has held that the remedy of Article 226 of the Constitution before the High Court would be available to an aggrieved party where the NCDRC has decided an appeal or a revision but no such remedy would be available where it was an original complaint before the NCDRC. The present petition should be dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy.

Held: The court allowed the present appeal and held that, “we are of the view that the District Forum, the State and the National Commissions fell in error in allowing the complaint and upholding it in appeal and revision. The appeal is accordingly allowed. The impugned orders are set aside and the complaint is dismissed.”