BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM:KURNOOL
Present: Sri.K.V.H. Prasad, B.A., LL.B President
And
Smt. C.Preethi, M.A.LL.B., Lady Member
Thursday the 14th day of May, 2009
C.C.No. 177/08
Between:
Azad Educational and Rural Development Society, Nandyal, Represented by its President, S.Nafees,
D.No.25/419-4-1, Saleem Nagar, Nandyal-518501, Kurnool District. … Complainant
Versus
The Branch Manager, Canara Bank,
D.No.25/510, Srinivas Nagar, Nandyal-518501, Kurnool District … Opposite parties
This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri.A.Jagadesh Kumar, Advocate, for the complainant, and Sri. K.Kapileswaraiah, Advocate, for the opposite party, upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following.
ORDER
(As per Sri. K.V.H.Prasad, President)
C.C.No.177/08
1. This case of the complainant is filed U/s.12 of C.P.Act seeking direction on the opposite party to pay to the complainant Rs.3,60,000/- with future interest and such other reliefs which the exgencies of the case demand, alleging the deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party in issuing a defective demand draft bearing No.721851 for Rs.10,000/- to the complainant on 12-12-2007 in favour of Periyar Institute of Distance Education(PRIDE) Periyar University- salem, Tamilanadu and the said Demand Draft being bounced the complainant was reminded by the said Education Institution on 5-1-2008 to send another D.D and consequent to that the complainant lost affiliation/permission from said institute to conduct study classes on behalf of said University and lead to a loss to the tune of Rs.3lakhs and the in deference of the opposite party to the compliant legal notice dt.15-4-2008.
2. In pursuance to the receipt of the notice of this forum as to this case of the complainant the opposite party caused its appearance through its counsel and contested the case filing Written version questioning any bonafidies in the cause of action of the complainant and seek the dismissal of complainant with costs as the complainant not even acted promptly at the offer of the opposite party to produce the said instrument for rectification and so seeks dismissal of the complainant with costs.
3. In the written version the opposite party disputes the local standie to the complainant to file this case firstly as the
said D.D was obtained on 12-12-2007 by one S.Kareemullah and not by the complainant secondly the said D.D being purchased for commercial purpose no consumer relation exist with the complainant thirdly the bonafidees of cause of action of the filing of this case is as to have a wrongful gain. It further submits that the said D.D was received by Agent of the complainant without the knowledge of it at its counter and the non signing the said D.D is having any malafidies.
4. In substantiation of the contentions while the complainant side has taken reliance on documentary record in Ex.A1 to A3 besides to its Sworn affidavit, the opposite party side has taken reliance on document any record in Ex.B1 besides to its sworn affidavit.
5. Hence the point for consideration is whether the alleged deficiency of service of the opposite party is made out by the complainant to have the complainant’s claim at the liability of the opposite party .
6. The complaint avers that the complainant obtained a D.D bearing No.721851 from the opposite party on 12-12-2007 for Rs.10,000/- in favour of Periyar Institute of Distance Education(PRIDE), Periyar University, Salem, Tamilanadu.
7. The opposite party even though admits the issual of said D.D but denies its issual to the complainant alleging its issual to one S.Kareemullah and places the Ex.B1-the D.D purchase application dated.12-12-2007 signed by one S.Kareemullah, C/o.Azad College of Distance Education, Nandyal for issual of D.D for Rs.10,000/- in favour of the Director, PRIDE, Salem. But the Ex.A3- O/c of legal notice dated.15-4-2008 says otherwise as that the Said D.D was obtained by complainant. Hence even though the sworn affidavit of complainant and reply to the interrogatories says that the said D.D was obtained by Kareemullah – Complainant’s husband at her instructions and she was also present with him at the time, but all these being not find any place in a Ex.A3 notice averments nor in the complaint averments nor their being any sworn affidavit of said kareemullah in support of said subsequent contentions of the complainant, they appear to be an Eleventh hour thought and development and a futile attempt of the complainant in order to save her local standie to file this case. Hence there remains any local standie to the complainant to file this case on the basis of said D.D obtained by Kareemullah for want of any power/authority to the complainant.
8. Even though from Ex.A1- the D.D said to have been issued by the opposite party the deficiency of service of the opposite party in issuing negligently a D.D without signing on it as to its issuing, is appearent, but there appears any bonafidees in the cause of action and in initiation of the case by the complainant firstly as to issual of said D.D. on her application, secondary no cogent material is placed by the complainant as to cancellation of any affiliation to it by said Education Institution and thirdly the said if any is solely at attributable to the alleged in different conduct of the opposite party alone and not for any short offs of the delegent approach and endeavourers of the complainant in getting the defect of said D.D rectified, fourthly for want of any cogent material as to alleged loss of Rs.3 lakhs claimed especially from the Ex.A2- letter dt.5-1-2008 of said Institution, the complainant was afforded opportunity to send a valid D.D and no where it denies any of its affiliation to complainant out right on account of said defect in said D.D and the complainant nowhere Exhibits any of its bonafide eagerness to obtain the required affiliation by making necessary alternative arrangements except to take undue advantage of the appearant defect of said D.D, and lastly for want of any cogent material canceling the affiliation to complainant institution the said claim of the complainant for Rs.3 lakhs appears to be as one meant for having a wrongful gain without any just basis.
9. The mere irresponsible replies of the opposite party to certain relevant interrogatories of the complainant as to the aspect of issual of D.D without signature on it, does not cure the inherent draw backs of the complainant’s side to institute the case with any competency.
10. However, as the written version, sworn affidavit and the reply of the opposite party to the interrogatories exhibits its ever readiness to rectify the said defect in D.D, blaiming solely the complainant’s side of its any proper approach in that line, in the circumstance of the case, the complainant is not remaining entitled to any of the relief’s sought, except to have a proper approach to the opposite party through said Kareemullah-the purchaser of D.D- for rectification of said defect in D.D.
11. Consequently, there being any liability of the opposite party to complainant’s claim, the complainant’s case is dismissed directing the opposite party to rectify the defect in said D.D No.721851(Ex.A1) by appending its signature thereon as its issual authority and revalidating the same on its presentation by said Kareemullah- who purchased the said D.D as per Ex.B1. Time granted for compliance is one month from the receipt of this order.
Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced on this 14th day of May, 2009.
Sd/- Sd/-
Member President
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant :Nil For the opposite parties :Nil
List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-
Ex.A1. DD bearing NO.721851 dt.12-12-2007 for Rs.10,000/-.
Ex.A2. Letter dt.5-1-2008 addressed to complainant.
Ex.A3. Office copy of legal notice dt.15-4-2008 to OP along with
Postal acknowledgement and receipt.
List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties:
Ex.B1. Application dt.12-12-2007 for obtaining DD Rs.10,000/-.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
// Certified free copy communicated under Rule 4 (10) of the
A.P.S.C.D.R.C. Rules, 1987//
Copy to:-
Complainant and Opposite parties
Copy was made ready on :
Copy was dispatched on :
