Before the District Forum: Kurnool
Present: 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
Tuesday the 14th day of September, 2004.
C.D.No.27/2004
Smt K.Sarojamma,
W/o. K.Ranga Rao,
D.No.I-1279-1,
H.B.S.Colony
Yemmiganur. . . . Complainnt
-Vs-
1. Branch Manager,
The Peerless General Finance &
Investments Co. Ltd., Dwaraka Towers,
7 Road, Cuddapha. . . . Opposite party No.1 represented by his
Counsel Sri P.Siva Sudarshan.
2. Sunkara Sreenivasulsu,
Feerless Seva Kendram,
M.M.Road, Ist Floor,
Madhavi Hotel, Adoni. . . . Opposite party.
O R D E R
(As per Smt C.Preethi, Member)
1. This CD complaint of the complainant is filed under section 12 of C.P.Act, 1986 seeking a direction on the opposite parties to pay the matured amount of Rs.2,075/- with 18% interest and Rs.2,000/- as costs and compensation and such other relief or reliefs which the complainant is entitled in the circumstances of the case.
2. The brief facts of the complaint of the complainant are that the complainant along with her husband paid Rs.3,000/- to opposite party No.1 ten years back and obtained 2 bonds. The said two bonds matured on 20.11.2003 and on 18.11.2003 the complainant submitted the said two bonds to opposite party No.2 which is the branch office of opposite party No.1. The opposite party No.1 sent a cheque for Rs.4,080/- to the complainant’s husband and did not sent any cheque in the name of the complainant. Hence being vexed the complainant got issued notice dt 8.12.2003 and it was received by opposite parties but the opposite party No.1 did neither complied the demand for matured amount nor replied to the said notice. Hence the complainant suffered mental agony and was constrained to file this complaint for redressal in this Forum.
3. In substantiation of her case the complainant filed the following documents Viz (1) letter dt 18.11.2003 (post card) addressed by agent to the complainant (2) Discharge voucher issued by opposite party No.1 to the complainant (3) notice dt 8.12.2003 issued by complainant to opposite party No.1 (4) courier receipt dt 8.12.2003 for sending Ex A.3 (5) acknowledgement of opposite party No.1 for the receipt of Ex A.3. (6) office copy of letter addressed by K.Ranga Rao to the District S.P of police, Kurnool (7) courier receipt for sending Ex A.6 dt 23.12.2003 to S.P of Kurnool and (8) acknowledgement of S.P office as to the receipt of Ex A.6, besides to her sworn affidavit in reiteration of her complaint avernments and the above documents are marked as Ex A.1 to A.8 for its appreciation in this case.
4. In pursuance to the notice of this Forum as to this case of the complainant the opposite party No.2 remained absent throughout the case proceedings and opposite party No.1 appeared through their counsel and contested case by filling denial written version.
5. The opposite party No.1 admits the complainant has taken a bond and on maturity she is entitled to receive Rs.2,075/- from the opposite party No.1. It further submits that it received the original bond and discharge form on 16.4.2004 from the complainant and on 21.4.2004 the opposite party No.1 sent a cheque bearing No. 125343 dt 24.4.2004 for Rs.2,075/- drawn on Central Bank of India, Cuddapah and the complainant received the said cheque on 23.3.2004. Therefore there is no delay and deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party No.1.
6. The opposite party No.1 further submits that the delay if any occurred is on the part of the complainant for not sending original bond and discharge form in time to opposite party No.1 and complainant is not having proper cause of action to file this complaint and she not entitled to any of the reliefs as sought in the complaint and seeks for the dismissal of complaint with costs.
7. In substantiation of its case the opposite party No.1 filed the following documents Viz (1) Discharge form cum voucher of the complainant dt 20.11.2003.(2) covering letter of opposite party No.1 to the complainant for sending cheque bearing No. 125343 for Rs.2,075/- (3) postal acknowledgement of receipt of Ex A.2 and (4) office copy of letter dt 22.12.2003 addressed by opposite party No.1 to the complainant besides to its sworn affidavit in reiteration of its written version as evidence and the above documents are marked as Ex B.1 to B.4 for its appreciation in this case.
8. Hence the point for consideration is to what relief the complainant is remaining entitled alleging deficiency of service on part of opposite parties:-
9. The complainant alleges that she is entitled to receive maturity amount of Rs.2,075/- on her bond, which was matured on 20.11.2003. She further alleges that she submitted the said bond to opposite party No.2 on 23.11.2003 which is the branch office of opposite party No.1. But as against toit the opposite party No.1 in their written version avernments alleges that it received the discharge form along with original bond on 16.4.2004 and immediately on 21.4.2004 sent a cheque bearing No. 125343 dt 21.4.2004 for Rs.2,075/- drawn on Central Bank of India, Cuddaph and the said cheque was sent through a covering letter of opposite party No.1 vide Ex B.2. The Ex B.3 Postal acknowledgement it envisages the receipt of Ex B.2 by complainant on 24.4.2004. But the complainant alleges that she has submitted the bond on 23.11.2003 and she received cheque on 24.4.2004 after delay of 5 month. In the absence of any cogent substance in support of the supra stated contentions of the complainant and as in the Ex B.1i.e discharge form cum voucher, the opposite party No.1 acknowledgement the receipt of Ex B.1 on 16.4.2003. Subsequent to that the said statement by the complainant on this aspects not only remains highly in-consistence but also there by un-trust worthy and as consisting of any bonafides of the complainant in that regard. Therefore what follows is that the complainant sent the discharge form cum voucher to the opposite party No.1 and opposite party No.1 received it on 16.4.2004. Hence there remaining no bonafides of the complainant in her hesitation on the said grievence.
10. The grievance of the complainant is that she received a cheque for Rs.2,075/- on 24.4.2004, but returned the same as she is not having bank account to encash it. But the complainant did not place any material to the effect that she has returned the cheque to opposite party No.1 while such is so, the opposite party No.1 denies of any receipt of cheque from the complainant. Hence from the above what appears is that the complainant has not returned the cheque to opposite party No.1 and therefore there remains no deficiency of service made by the complainant on the opposite party No.1.
11. The opposite party No.1 in exchange of interrogatories questioned the complainant in question No.3 whether any mode of payment was preferred by the complainant and the complainant replied that she preferred payment through DD. But as in the Ex B.1 there is a column regarding the mode of payment by cash or cheque or draft or money order or by hand and the complainant left it blank without any preference from the above it is clear that the complainant had not made any preference for payment of maturity amount. The complainant in her complaint avernments seeks the payment of maturity amount by cheque and in the sworn affidavit she submits that cheque was returned as she is not having a Bank account. Hence from the above what appears is that there is no inconsistence between the two statements made by the complainant to believe her version and therefore there remains no bonafides of the complainant in her hesitation on the said grienvence.
12. The other grievence of the complainant is that there was no reply to her notice dt 8.12.2002, but the opposite parties brought on record the Ex B.4. The Ex B.4 is the office copy of letter addressed by opposite party No.1 to the complainant which envisages the receipt of letter dt 8.12.2003 of the complainant, and it further says that on verification from their records they have not received any claim form of the complainant and further request the complainant to submit discharge form and original endowment certificate for releasing payment. Hence from the above material there appears high inconsistency as to the allegations made by the complainant in her complaint avernments and no deficiency of service was established by the complainant against the opposite party No.1
13. Hence, in the circumstances discussed above as there is no deficiency of service made out by the complainant on the part of the opposite party No.1 and as the complainant did not place any material as to the return of the cheque to opposite party No.1. The complainant is not remaining entitled to any of the reliefs sought in the complaint as the case of the complainant is suffering for want of proper cause of action.
14. Consequently, the complaint is dismissed for want of merit and force.
Dictated to the Stenographer Typed to the Dictation corrected by us, pronounced in the Open Court this the 14th day of September, 2004.
PRESIDENT
MEMBER MEMBER
