Before the District Forum Kurnool

Sri K.V.H. Prasad, B.A., LL.B., President

And

Smt C. Preethi, M.A., LL.B., Member

Sri R. Ramachandra Reddy, B.com LL.B, Member

Monday the 28^th day of February, 2005

C.D.No.81/2004

K.Ranga Rao,

S/o Late K.Narasimha Rao,

D.No.I-1279-1,H.B.S.Colony,

Yemmiganur,

Kurnool District.                                 . ..Complainant represented by his counsel

                                                                Sri J.P.Basava Raj.

-Vs-

1. The Peerless General Financers Investment Company Limited,

Dwarka Towers,7 Roads Junction,Cuddapah.

1. The Branch Manager,

The peerless General Finance Investment Company Limited,

C.V.R. Enterprises Complex,

Railway Feeders Road,

Anantapur.                              . ..Opposite parties 1 and 2 represented by their counsel

                                                                Sri P.Siva Sudarshan

O R D E R

(As per Sri K.V.H. Prasad, President)

1.         The case of the complainant is that the opposite party did not refund the amount due under Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 i.e., (the Peerless General Finance and Investment Company Limited, Social Welfare Scheme 10 Years Welfare Endowment Certificate) and hence allege deficiency of service.  The written version of the opposite party denies any of its deficiencies alleging non submission of discharge voucher along with the said bonds by the complainant.

2.         The perusal of the said bonds in Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 indicates the schedule of Annual premiums to be paid by the complainant to the opposite parties from time to time subsequent to its commencement of the said bond there is no further material  from the complainant’s side as to the payment of its subsequent schedule of annual premiums and on the other hand there is an admission of the complainant in a sworn affidavit of the effect of the non-payment of the subsequent schedule payment of the annual premiums.

3.         As per the terms and conditions of the said bond in Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 in case of default of further premiums the bond holder is entitled only to interest and bonus accrued on the actual amounts paid.  The same is reflected in the office copy of the discharge voucher filed by the opposite party.

4.         But to make a claim of bond holder has to submit the bond along with the discharge vouchers.

5.         The complainant except alleging the submission of the discharge voucher to the opposite parties at Cuddapah and Anantapur did not file any such cogent materials which substantiate the said averments.

6.         Even if the said submission of the discharge voucher is to be taken granted for a movement without admission for a movement as the bonds were not submitted, the fact of which could be known from the very fact of the presence of the said very original bonds in the case records, the deficiency of service appears to be more on the complainant’s side by his conduct of non submission of the original bonds.  Hence, no deficiency of service is attributable to the opposite parties.

7.         The averments made in the complaint as to the amount of Rs.2,075/- payable  to the complainant’s wife K.Saroja and also some two Demand Drafts said to have been sent by the complainant as agent is not entertain able in this case for want of privy to the complainant to the alleged amount of due to his wife  and necessary cogent    substantiating material of the said fact.

8.         As the bonds in Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 were issued by the Anantapur Branch the case against the opposite party No.1 suffers for want of proper cause of action and hence the case against the opposite party No.1 is dismissed for want of any of its concerned to the claim of the complainant.

9.         In the circumstances of any cogent proof as to the alleged submission of the discharge vouchers even to the opposite parties there appears no obligation on the part of the opposite party No.2 even as to the payment of the amounts due to the complainant under the said bonds.  Hence no deficiency of service can be implied against the opposite party No.2 even.  Hence the case against the opposite party No.2 also remains without any proper cause of action in the absence of any proof  of proper submission of the claim by the complainant and so the case against the opposite party No.2 also stands dismissed.

10.       Therefore, in the circumstances of the case the complainant is directed to obtain necessary discharge forms of the said bonds from the Anantapur Branch (opposite party No.2)  and submit his claim along with Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 for the amounts due under the said bonds to him as relected in the discharge vouchers and thereon the opposite party No.2 pay the amounts due to the complainant within a fort night.

11.       With the said direction the case of the complainant is dismissed without costs.

Dictated to the Stenographer, Typed to the Dictation corrected by us, Pronounced in the Open Court this the 28^th day of February, 2005.

PRESIDENT

            MEMBER                                                                                                       MEMBER

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

For the complainant :- Nil                                                                For the opposite parties :- Nil

List of Exhibits Marked for the complainant:-                                                                  

Ex.A1              Social Welfare Scheme Ten Years Welfare Endowment Certificate No.E.3031548/919 dated of commencement from 02-03-2002 to 02-03-2004 issued by opposite party No.2 in favour of complainant.

Ex.A2              Social Welfare Scheme Ten Years Welfare Endowment Certificate No.E.3031548/919 dated of commencement from 02-03-2003 to 02-03-2004 issued by opposite party No.2 in favour of complainant.

List of Exhibits Marked for the opposite parties:-

PRESIDENT

            MEMBER                                                                                                       MEMBER