BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM: KURNOOL
Present: Sri K.V.H.Prasad, B.A., LL.B., President
Smt C.Preethi, M.A., LL.B., Member
Sri R.Ramachandra Reddy, B.Com., LL.B., Member
Wednesday the 30th day of November, 2005
CC No. 145/2005
K.Sarojamma,
W/o K.Ranga Rao,
D.No.I-1279-1, H.B.S.Colony,
Yemmiganur-518 360. …. Complainant
-Vs-
S.Srinivasulu,
Peerless AMR,
80/09/45, Peerless Seva Kendram,
Madhuri Hotel upstair,
M.M.Road,
Adoni-518 301. …. Opposite Party
This complaint coming on 24.11.2005 for arguments in the presence of Sri G.Nagaraju, Advocate, Kurnool for complainant and Sri P.Siva Sudarshan, Advocate, Kurnool for opposite parties, and stood over for consideration till this day, the Forum made the following.
O R D E R
(As per Sri R.Ramachandra Reddy, Hon’ble Member)
1. This CC complaint of the complainant is filed under section 11 and 12 of CP Act, 1986 seeking a direction on the opposite party to pay the matured amount of Rs. 2075/- with 12 % interest, Rs.2,000/- as compensation, traveling expenses Rs.1,500/-, Rs.100/- as costs 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 paid Rs.1,000/- to the opposite party, 10 years back and obtained a certificate No. E 0285555. The said certificate matured on 20.11.2003. Then the complainant submitted the said bond to the Branch office of the opposite party. The said Branch office of the opposite party sent an intimation to the complainant about the maturity of the said certificate on 20.11.2003 and accordingly she handed over the same to the opposite party on 23.11.2003 at Yemmiganur but did not send any cheque in the name of the complainant. Hence, being vexed, the complainant got issued notice dated 24.9.2004 and it was received by the opposite party but he did neither complied the demand for matured amount nor reply 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, she filed the following documents Viz (1) Xerox copy of intimation letter dated 20.11.2003 of Kadapa Branch office of The Peerless General Finance and Investment Company Ltd (2) notice dated 24.9.2004 issued by the complainant to the opposite party (3) Courier acknowledgment of opposite party for the receipt of Ex A.4 (4) Courier receipt dated 24.9.2004 for sending Ex A.2 (5) notice of the complainant’s husband dated 25.3.2005 to one Sri Govinda Rao Branch Manager, Anantapur and to one K.V. Prasad Patnaik, Kadapa (6) Courier receipt dated 23.5.2005 for sending Ex A.5 and (7) Courier acknowledgment receipt dated 23.5.2005 of Ex A.6 as to the receipt of Ex A.5 notice, besides to her sworn affidavit in reiteration of her complaint averments and the above documents are marked as Ex A.1 to A.7 and also filed interrogatories of the complainant dated 15.10.2005 to the opposite party and her answers to the interrogatories of the opposite party dated 26.10.2005 for their appreciation in this case.
4. In pursuance to the notice of this Forum as to this case of the complainant the opposite party appeared through his counsel and contested the case by filing denial written version.
5. The opposite party admits that the complainant has taken a bond for Rs.1000/- from the Kadapa Branch and on maturity she is entitled to receive Rs. 2,075/- from the Peerless Company. After the maturity of the said bond the complainant approached the opposite party and submitted discharge form and he immediately sent the discharge form to the Branch Manger, Peerless General Finance, Kadapa Branch. The Branch Manager, Kadapa also paid the maturity amount Rs. 2,075/- on 21.4.2004 by way of cheque No. 125343 dated 21.4.2004 drawn on Central Bank of India, Kadapa. The complainant also received the said cheque on 24.4.2004. The opposite party not received any notice from the complainant as alleged in the complaint. The complainant created the courier service receipt for the purpose of this case. Further the complainant earlier also filed the similar complaint on the same facts and documents against the opposite party in CD No. 27 /2004. The Hon’ble Forum after detailed enquiry the said CD was dismissed on 14.9.2005. Hence principle of Resjudicata apply to this case . The opposite party Branch Office contested the said above matter, hence, he has not contested the said matter in the said CD. By suppressing all these facts, she approached this Forum with falls allegations for wrongful gain from the opposite party. Further the dispute is regarding to accounts, hence detail evidence is required. Hence, this Forum as no jurisdiction to entertain this case. Further submits that this opposite party is only agent. The opposite party’s Head Office i.e. Chairman and Managing Director, Peerless General Finance and Investment Company ltd, Peerless Bhavan, 3 Esplande, East Kolkata – 69 issued the original certificate in favour of the complainant through its Kadapa Branch. Hence, The Head Office and Branch Office are the necessary opposite parties in this case. But the complainant is not joined them as opposite parties in this case. Hence, complaint may be dismissed for joinder of the necessary parties and that the complainant has neither any cause of action or entitle any relief against this opposite party and hence this complaint is false and frivolous and is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs as per Section 26 of CP Act, 1986.
6. In substantiation of its case the opposite party filed the following documents Viz (1) Register Postal Acknowledgement of the complainant dt 24.4.2004 as to the receipt of the Cheque No.125343 dated 21.4.2004, drawn in favour of the complainant on Central Bank of India, Karapa for Rs. 2,075/- (2)The carbon copy office copy of the letter dated 21.4.2004 of Kadapa Branch addressed to the complainant regarding the enclosure of the cheque No. 125343 dated 21.4.2004 which was drawn in favour of the complainant on Central Bank of India, Kadapa towards the payment of maturity amount of Rs. 2,075/- in CD No. 27 (3) certified copy of the Judgment of this Hon’ble Forum in CD NO. 79/2004 wherein the same was discussed and dismissed by this Forum as it was proved that the said payment was paid by the said Branch, besides to its sworn affidavit in reiteration of its written version averments as evidence and the above documents are marked as Ex B.1 to B.3 for its appreciation in this case. The opposite party further relied on the interrogatories served to the complainant on 20.10.2005 on the reply of the opposite party to the interrogatories of the complainant on 20.10.2005 and also two citations.
7. Hence, the point for consideration is to what relief the complainant is remaining entitled alleging deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party:-
8. The opposite party relied on the judgment in IV (2005) CPJ 337 of Chhattis Garh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission , Raipur wherein it is observed that the agent of Peerless Financial Services Ltd could not be made liable for the repayment of the amount of debentures issued by said Company. In the judgment in support of it they referred the Supreme Court Judgment of (1998) 3.Scc.247. The opposite party relied on another judgment in IV (2005) CPJ 490, Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh, wherein it is observed that the earlier complaint filed on same cause of action dismissed. Permission to file fresh complaint not obtained. Hence, the second complaint not maintainable and dismissed.
9. Hence, in the circumstances discussed above as to the cogent material of ExB.1 to B.3 and citations mentioned above, as there is no deficiency of service made out by the complainant on the part of the opposite party and the complainant did not place any cogent material in substantiation of her claim. 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.
10. Consequently, the complaint is dismissed for want of merit and force.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed to her, corrected and pronounced in the Open Court this the 30th day of November, 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:-
A1 Xerox copy of Receipt of Peerless General Finance & Investment Company
Ltd., Cuddapah (given to complainant) Dt. 23-11-2003.
A2 Notice, Dt. 24-9-2004, addressed to O.P
A3 Courier Acknowledgement, Dt. 24-9-2004 of OP of notice sent by
complainant
A4 Receipt of Courier Service, Dt.24-9-2004 No.7608228595.
A5 Xerox copy of Letter Dt. 25-3-2005, addressed to T.Govinda Rao, B.M.
Peerless General Finance & Investment Company Ltd., Anathapur.
A6 Courier Service Receipt No.7608274392, Dt. 25-9-2005.
A7 Courier Acknowledgement No.7608274392.
List of Exhibits Marked for the opposite party:-
B1 Original postal acknowledgement as (Ex.B3 in C.O.27/04)
B2 Letter office copy of Peerless General Finance & Investment Company Ltd.,
Cuddapah, Dt.21-4-04 to the complainant.
B3 Order copy of the District Forum, Kurnool in C.D.27/04 (Free copy of OP
issued by the Hon’ble Forum)
PRESIDENT
MEMBER MEMBER
Copy to:-
1.Sri. G. Nagaraju, Advocate, Kurnool
2.Sri. P. Siva Sudarshan, Advocate, Kurnool
Copy was made ready on:
Copy was dispatched on:
Copy was delivered to parties:
