REENA SHARMA Vs. KAPIL JAIN
LAWS(HPCDRC)-2010-5-4
HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Decided on May 24,2010

REENA SHARMA Appellant
VERSUS
Kapil Jain Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) RESPONDENT is duly served as per office report. He is neither present nor is represented by any one.
(2.) WE have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and with his assistance have also examined the record of complaint file.
(3.) AS per averments made in the complaint in its paragraph -2, case of the appellant is, that on 8th July, 2003 a Deed of Partnership was signed between the parties whereby a business in the field of education was set up by them. Copy of partnership was enclosed as annexure C -1 with the complaint. According to her, in terms of annexure C -1, she handed over a cheque of Rs.40,000/ - to the respondent, this was towards her capital investment. Her further case was, that if any partner desired to retire from the business, this could be done by giving three months notice. This amount was to carry capital interest at the rate of 18% per annum. Appellant was also discharging her duties as a Tutor in the subjects of Chemistry, Personal Development, and was attending for Front Officer Counseling. Her salary was fixed at Rs.5,000/ - per month. She was allowed to attend classes on English speaking course as a student for a nominal consideration. It is specifically pleaded by her that she was a consumer for this limited purpose. In this background, she filed complaint for grant of Rs.40,000/ - with interest at the rate of 18% per annum quarterly compounded from 26.06.2003 till the date of realization, she claimed further sum of Rs.42,000/ - as arrears of unpaid salary for the period August, 2003 to July, 2004 together with interest at the rate of 18% per annum quarterly compounded besides Rs.50,000/ - as compensation for mental stress and harassment and Rs.25,000/ - as cost of legal proceedings.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.