Before the District CONSUMERS Forum:Kurnool
Present: Sri K.V.H.Prasad, B.A., LL.B., President
And
Smr C.Preethi, M.A., LL.B., Member
Sri R.Ramachandra Reddy, B.Com., LL.B., Member
Wednesday the 30th day of July, 2003
C.D. No.31/2002
P.Vara Prasada Sarma,
R/o 6-16-38,
Padma Street,
Allagadda,
Kurnool District. . . . Complainant represented by his
Counsel Sri .V.Nataraja Rao.
-Vs-
1. The Manager, (FDI Services),
Nagarjuna Finance Limited,
Nagarjuna Hills,
Panjagutta,
Hyderabad. .. . In Person
2. Sri.K.Suri babu,
Recognized Special Officer,
Nagarjuna Investor Services Limited,
Panjagutta,
Hyderabad. .. . In Person.
O R D E R
1. This consumer dispute case of the complainant is filed under section 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 seeking a direction on the opposite party to pay the maturity amount of Rs.30,000/- with interest at 20.31% from 27-02-2001 till the realization, Rs.10,000/- as compensation for the mental agony suffered and Rs.10,000/- as the costs of this case and the other reliefs which the complainant may be entitled in the exigencies of the case.
2. The brief facts of the complainant’s case as per his complaint are that on 27-05-1997 the opposite party No.1 collected a deposit of Rs.15,000/- from the complainant at Kurnool assuring the payment of Rs.30,000/- on its maturity on 27-02-2001 and issued a FDR No.C451100000185, but the opposite party did neither kept up his promise nor relied to the notice dated 14-04-2001. The opposite party No.1 did neither care to comply nor reply to the legal notice dated 09-05-2001 and the opposite party No.2 gave an evasive reply holding the responsibility of the opposite party no.1 only. The order of the company law board if any is not binding the complainant as he was neither to party to it nor notice of it. The conduct of the opposite party in not paying the due amounts to deficiency of service and constrained the complainant to this Forum for redressal of his grievances.
3. The complainant enclosed to the complaint un-attested Xerox copy of FDR No.045110000185 dated 27-05-1997 for deposit of Rs.15,000/- payable as Rs.30,000/- on its maturity on 27-02-2001, office copy of the legal notice dated 09-04-2001, acknowledgement of receipt of the said notice, office copy of the legal notice dated 09-05-2001, acknowledgment of the receipt of the said notice, office copy of the legal notice dated 04-06-2001, acknowledgement of receipt of the said notice, reply notice dated 17-05-2001 of the opposite party.
4. The notices of this case were served on the opposite parties 1 and 2. While the opposite party No.2 abstained from participating in the case proceedings by filing any written version of it in deffence to the complaint case, the opposite party No.2 merely filed an un attested Xerox copy of the interim direction of the High Court of A.P. in W.MP. No.1759+3/2001 in W.P.No.14064/2001 dated 11-07-2001 ordering interim stay of all further proceedings before the District Consumer’s Forum of the State of A.P. against opposite parties. in spite of the vacation of the said interim stay by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh vide its order dated 09-05-2003 the opposite parties did neither filed any of their written version in defence to the complaint averments nor contested the matter by any of their effective representation.
5. Hence the point of consideration is whether the complainant has made out its case and there by his entitleness to the reliefs sought?:-
6. None of the documentary record placed by the complainant envisages the origination of the F.D.R. in question within the territorial limits of the District Consumer’s Forum, Kurnool. Nor the complainant has filed any sworn affidavit of his in support and in substantiation of the documents filed or as to the cause of action at Kurnool. Nor the complainant has made any diligent prosecution of the case by establishing his case by proof of the documentary record. As mere filing of the documents does not dispense with their proof. The conduct of the complainant in not making any endeavour towards their proof is amounting to his utter failure to substantiate his case by any cogent means and material.
7. As the opposite parties of are Hyderabad address having their business at Hyderabad and no branch of the opposite party at Kurnool to the party to this case alleging the cause of action on to it and the liability of the opposite parties there under and in the absence of any other specific material as to the origination of the FDR transaction within the territorial jurisdiction of the District Forum, Kurnool it is very hard to hold the territorial jurisdiction of the District Forum, Kurnool to entertain the grievances of the complainant’s case.
8. As there being any material to hold the territorial jurisdiction to the District Forum, Kurnool to entertain the complainant grievances nor any substantiating material as to the claim of the complainant is there the case of the complainant is remaining not established as to warrant the grant of any reliefs to the complainant.
9. Consequently, the case of the complainant is dismissed without costs.
Dictated to the Stenographer, Typed to the Dictation corrected by us, Pronounced in the open Court this the 30th day of July, 2003.
Sd/-
PRESIDENT
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant:- Nil For the opposite parties:- Nil
List of Exhibits marked for the complainant: Nil
List of Exhibits marked for the opposite parties:- Nil
Sd/-
PRESIDENT
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER
