FA.No.227/2008 against CC

Between:

Dhulipala Parvatisam, S/o.Koteswara Rao,

Aged about 67 years, Occ: Retd. Employee,

R/o.D.No.8/220-1, Godugupet,

Machilipatnam, Krishna District.

…Appellant/Complainant.

And

1.The LIC Employees Cooperative Bank,

   Rep. by the Branch Manager,

   LIC Divisional Office Buildings,

   2.The LIC Employees Cooperative Bank,

3.Ch.Sobhan Kumar, S/o.not known,

   Aged about 42 years, Occ: Employee,

4.D.Krishna Kumari, W/o.Sohan Kumar,

   Aged about 35 years, Occ: Employee,

…Respondents/Opp.Parties.

Counsel for the Appellant         : Mr.M.Hari Babu.

Counsel for the Respondents   : Mr.P.Srinivas (for R.1 and R.2).

QUORUM: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT,

AND

SMT.M.SHREESHA, HON’BLE MEMBER.

TUESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF JULY,

TWO THOUSAND TEN.

Oral Order (Per Smt.M.Shreesha, Hon’ble Member)

*******

1.         Aggrieved by the order dated 11.01.2008 in CC.Sr.No.757/2007 on the file of District Consumer Forum, Krishna District at Machilipatnam, the complainant preferred this appeal.

2.         It is the case of the complainant that opposite parties 3 and 4 had broke open the locks of his house and stolen Fixed Deposit Receipts, Sale Deeds, Bank Pass Books, etc.  They forged his signatures and withdrew amounts from the opposite parties 1 and 2 banks.  He submitted that opposite party No.1, viz. The LIC Employees Cooperative   He claimed the following relief:

            “a) To direct the O.Ps to pay an amount of Rs.20,000 + 9,500 + 14,000 + 48,000 a total of 91,500/- to the complainant with interest at the rate of 12% from the date of the deposit till the date of realization.

            b) To remove the name of O.P.4 as she herself joined as joint holder for the FDRs which are actually in the name of sole complainant for the FDRs bearing FDR No.17547 dt.20.11.2002 for Rs.20,000/- matured on 20-11-2005, FDR No.17548 dt.20-11-2002 for Rs.22,400/- matured on 20-11-2005, FDR No.21190 dt.3-1-2005 for Rs.40,000/- matured on 3-1-2006 which were originally in the name of the complainant and returned the same to him.

            c) To add the name of the complainant by deleting the name of the O.P.4 for the below mentioned FDRs as she herself with the help of O.P.1 to 3 removed the name of the complainant who is the beneficiary and actual deposit holder of FDRs bearing No.1) SFD No.19697 dt.8-8-2003 for Rs.45,981-00, 2) SFD No.20446 dt.23.10.2003 for Rs.55,392-00, 3) SFD No.20447 dt.23.10.2003 for Rs.55,392-00, 4) SFD.No.20448 dt.23-10-2003 for Rs.55,392-00.”   

3.         The District Forum dismissed the complaint at the Sr stage on the ground that the procedure contemplated under C.P.Act is summary in nature and the case on hand requires elaborate and voluminous oral and documentary evidence, more so when fraud, forgery and cheating were averred.

4.         Aggrieved by the said order, the complainant preferred this appeal.

5.         The case of the complainant is that he is a retired employee of the Life Insurance Corporation of India.  He deposited various amounts with opposite parties 1 and 2 under term deposits.  He submits that he has been suffering from paralysis, blood pressure and sugar.  Opposite party 4 is his daughter and opposite party 3 is her husband.   

6.         The learned counsel for the complainant contended that the District Forum erred in dismissing the complaint which falls within the ambit of Consumer Protection Act.  Though opposite parties 4 and 3 are none other than his daughter and son-in-law respectively, he alleged they had stolen some valuable property including F.D.Rs  It is not known how such acts could be termed as consumer dispute.  It is evident from the pleadings that allegation of forgery and fraud cannot be determined under summary proceedings.  They need elaborate evidence in the light of the facts pleaded by him.  The District Forum has rightly directed the complainant to approach appropriate court to resolve the dispute

7.         Hence, this appeal fails and is dismissed accordingly.  The time taken before this Commission can be considered for computation of limitation while preferring  before the appropriate court. 

                    PRESIDENT

MEMBER

DtVvr.