BEFORE THE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ATHYDERABAD

F.A.No.80 OF 2010 AGAINST C.C.No.13 OF 2009 DISTRICT FORUMNELLORE

Between:

Padala Brahmanandam
Aged 57 years,Jakkalavari Street
Kovur-524 137,Nellore               A N D

1.           Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank
       , Kovur-524 137
       

2.                                

3.           Main Road
       

4.                                

5.                         

6.                  Paradise                                                       

Counsel for the Appellant            

Counsel for the Respondent No.1  

Counsel for the Respondent No.2  

QUORUM:  

AND

SRI R.LAKSHMINARASIMHA RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER

TUESDAY THE FIRST DAY OF MARCH

Oral Order (As per Sri R.Lakshminarasimha Rao, Hon’ble Member)

                                               1.     

2.         

3.     Nellore   `90,000/- from the opposite parties no.1 to 6 towards compensation for mental tension, expenses etc.

4.      `9000/- from the opposite party no.1 bank on 20.9.2001 and as the amount was not paid, the opposite party no.1 bank proposed to conduct auction on 20.3.2004 and issued notice   `214/- was debited to the savings bank account of the complainant which resulted the minimum balance programmed under ALPM (computer) data processing `10/- per month  

5.    `282/- towards publication/other charges debited to his account.  improper inclusion of the name of the complaint in the auction notice. `282/- sent to him through demand draft by the opposite party.        

6.           `100/- for the delay caused in delivering the document.      

7.    

8.      

9.    Civil Court. 

10.   

1)               Whether the opposite parties committed any deficient service in the matter of the communication of the letter to the complainants?

2)               To what relief?

11.            

“a letter was sent through your courier service dated 4.12.2006, receipt no.169706 from Pinakini Grameena Bank Kovur to Nagarjunasagar (Macherla).  

12.     The complainant cannot take two mutually destructive pleas that the opposite party no.1 had made a delayed dispatch of the letter    In the circumstances   

13.       

14.         `1,000/- towards compensation on account of the mental tension suffered by the complainant owing to the delay of 28 days caused in communicating the letter by the opposite parties no.2 to 6.

15.            `1,000/- to the complainant along with costs of`500/-.  

KMK*