Read Full Judgment: Annapurna B. Uppin & Ors. vs. Malsiddappa & Anr.
The case of Annapurna B. Uppin & Ors. v. Malsiddappa & Anr. revolves around a dispute concerning investments made in a partnership firm. The respondent, Malsiddappa, alleged that he invested Rs. 5 lakhs in the partnership firm M/s Annapurneshwari Cotton Co., seeking repayment after 120 months with interest. However, upon maturity, the payment was denied, leading to the filing of a complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (DCDRF) for deficiency in service.
The appellants, legal heirs of the deceased managing partner Basavaraj Uppin, contested the complaint, claiming they were never part of the partnership firm. They argued that the complainant himself was a partner as per a registered partnership deed, dated 27.05.1996, and thus, the complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, was not maintainable.
Despite legal notice, the appellants refused to return the invested amount, leading to the complaint alleging deficiency in service. The respondents argued that the appellants inherited the estate of Basavaraj Uppin and couldn’t escape liability.
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), in its order dated 01.04.2022, upheld the complaint, directing the appellants to pay Rs. 5 lakhs with interest and compensation for mental agony. The appellants challenged this decision before the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court, after considering the arguments, held that the complainant, being a partner as per the registered partnership deed, could not maintain the complaint under the Consumer Protection Act. Additionally, the investment was for profit, making it a commercial transaction outside the Act’s purview.
The Court also found no evidence of the appellants becoming partners or inheriting the firm’s liabilities upon Basavaraj Uppin’s death. Therefore, the legal heirs couldn’t be held liable for the firm’s debts.
The Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the NCDRC’s order and dismissing the complaint. However, it left open the option for the complainant to seek remedy through other legal channels.
