BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM RAICHUR.
COMPLAINT NO. (DCFR) CC. 83/11.
THIS THE 20th DAY OF MARCH 2012.
P R E S E N T
1. Sri. Pampapathi B.sc.B.Lib. LLB PRESIDENT.
2. Sri. Gururaj, B.com.LLB. (Spl) MEMBER.
3. Smt. Pratibha Rani Hiremath,M.A. (Sanskrit) MEMBER
*****
COMPLAINANT :- Dr. Rachayya S/o. Siddabavayya Surgimath, aged
about 62 years, Occ: Retired Medical Officer, Raichur.
//VERSUS//
OPPOSITE PARTIES :- 1. The Post Master General, Bangalore.
2. The Superintendent of Post Master, Head Post Office, Raichur.
3. The Post Master, Jawaharnagar, Post Office, Jawaharnagar, Raichur.
4. The Post Master, Lingasugur, Dist: Raichur.
5. The Manager, HDFC Bank, “Vykunta Complex, Near Chandra Mouleshwara Chowk, Raichur.
CLAIM :- For to direct the opposite No-3 to pay an amount
of Rs. 6,650/- and damages with exemplary cost due to delay made by them in collection of his cheque.
Date of institution :- 21-11-11.
Notice served :- 12-12-11.
Date of disposal :- 20-03-12.
Complainant represented by Sri. C.S. Rastapur, Advocate.
Opposite Nos. 1 & 3 represented by Sri. M. Nagaraj, D.G.P.
Opposite Nos. 2, 4 & 5 dismissed vide order dt. 12-12-2011.
This case coming for final disposal before us, the Forum on considering the entire material and evidence placed on record by the parties passed the following.
JUDGEMENT
By Sri. Pampapathi, President:-
This is a complaint filed by the complainant Dr. Rachayya against Opposite Nos. 1 & 3 Post Office for to direct the opposite No-3 to pay an amount of Rs. 6,650/- and damages with exemplary cost due to delay made by them in collection of his cheque amount.
2. The brief facts of the complainant case are that, he deposited a cheque bearing No. AA 437207 for Rs. 1,23,913/- on 24-09-2011 in the Post Office of opposite No-3 at Jawaharnagar Raichur for collection. The said cheque was collected after lapse of (40) days i.e, on 10-11-2011. In the meanwhile, he was in need of money as such, he pledged golden ornaments and obtained loan for interest as such, he sustained loss of Rs. 6,650/- due to delay made by opposite No-3 for collection of the amount. Hence there was a deficiency in service on the part of opposite No-3 accordingly, he prayed for to grant reliefs as noted in his complaint.
3. Opposite No- 1 & 3 in this case appeared through their Advocate filed written version by stating that, there was no delay on the part of Post Office, but it was delay in the bank opposite No-3 took all necessary steps to clear the cheque by writing letters. Hence there was no deficiency in service on the part of opposite No.3 or on the part of the opposite No-1 accordingly, it prayed for to dismiss the complaint among other grounds.
4. In-view of the pleadings of the parties. Now the points that arise for our consideration and determination are that:
1. Whether the complainant proves that, opposite No-3 committed deficiency in service in collecting the amount vide cheque bearing No. AA 437207 for Rs. 1,23,913/- as alleged in this complaint.?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs as prayed in this complaint.?
3. What order?
5. Our findings on the above points are as under:-
(1) In Negative.
(2) In Negative.
(3) In-view of the findings on Point Nos. 1 & 2, we proceed
to pass the final order for the following :
REASONS
POINT NO.1 & 2:-
6. This complaint against opposite Nos-2, 4, & 5 was dismissed at the request of complainant vide his memo dt. 12-12-2011. Hence this case is proceeded against opposite No-1 Post Master General, and opposite No-3 Post Master, Jawaharnagar Post Office, Raichur.
7. The Main allegations of complainant against opposite No-3 is that, he presented a cheque bearing No. AA 437207 for Rs. 1,23,913/- for collection, which was the cheque issued to him by the Post Master Lingasugur. The said cheque was collected by the opposite No-3 only on 10-11-2011 i.e, after lapse of (40) days, he was badly in need of money, as such, he pledged golden ornaments and obtained loan for interest, as such, he sustained loss of Rs. 6,650/- for the delay committed by the opposite No-3 in collection of the said cheque.
8. Opposite No-3 shown the reasons for such delay in his written version as well as in his affidavit-evidence of RW-1 and documents Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-5.
9. Surprisingly, the complainant himself not turned up before this Forum, not filed his affidavit-evidence in support of his allegations in spite of sufficient opportunities given to him. Hence it is taken as complainant not filed any affidavit-evidence or not got marked any documents in his favor.
10. Keeping in view of the allegations of the complainant without his evidence affidavit-evidence of opposite No-3 Post Master is the only evidence available in this case, we are of the view that, complainant not made out case of negligence on the part of opposite No-3 in collection of his cheque. When complainant failed to establish the alleged negligence on the part of opposite No-3 then, question of deficiency in service on the part of opposite No-3 would not arise for consideration. Hence we are of the view that, it is not a fit case to consider the alleged grievances of complainant without his affidavit-evidence. Accordingly we answered this point in negative.
POINT NO.2:-
11. In view of our finding on Point No-1, the complainant is not entitled for any one of the reliefs as prayed in this complaint.
POINT NO.3:-
12. In view of our findings on Point Nos- 1 & 2, we proceed to pass the following order:
ORDER
This complaint filed by the complainant is dismissed.
Intimate the parties accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 20-03-12)
Smt.Pratibha Rani Hiremath, Sri. Gururaj Sri. Pampapathi,
Member. Member. President,
Dist.Forum-Raichur. Dist-Forum-Raichur Dist-Forum-Raichur.
