F.A.No.354/2005 AGAINST C.D.No.13/2004, DISTRICT FORUM-I

MACHILIPATNAM

Between-

Shri K.Siva Prasad,

S/o.Venkata Ratnam,

Aged 45 years, Buttapet.

R/o.Machilipatnam,

Krishna District.                                                                                             ..Appellant/

                   Opposite party No.1

            And

1. T.P.S.Devi,

     Proprietrix/Authorized Signatory,

    Tulluri Investments, Tulluri Mansion,

     D.No.31-4-10, Dr.Gade Purnachandra

     Rao street, Maruthinagar, Vijayawada.                                     Respondent/

                                                                                                                  Opp.party No.2

2. Shri Y.Pattabhi Rama Sastry,

    S/o.late Venkata Narsaiah, Hindu,

    Aged 76 years, Retd.Employee,

    R/o.Dr.No.21-338/1, Noble Road,

    Bhaskarapuram, Machilipatnam.

3. Y.Padmavathi,

    W/o.Pattabhi Rama Sastry, aged 72 years,

    Housewife, R/o.Dr.No.21-338/1,

    Noble Road, Bhaskarapuram,

    Machilipatnam.                                                                                          Respondents/

                                                                                                                        Complainants

Counsel for the Appellant- Mr.M.Aravindu

Counsel for the Respondent-Mr.Y.Balakrishna.

QUORUM- THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT.

                                                             SMT.M.SHREESHA, MEMBER

                                                                                    AND

SRI G.BHOOPATHI REDDY, MEMBER.

THURSDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF JULY,

TWO THOUSAND EIGHT.

Oral Order-(Per Smt.M.Shreesha, Hon’ble Member)

…

            Aggrieved by the order in C.D.No.13/2004 on the file of District Forum-I, Krishna at Machilipatnam, opposite party No.1 preferred this appeal.

The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainants 1 and 2 have jointly deposited the amounts with opposite parties with the facility of either or survivor, for which the agreed rate of interest was14 percent p.a.  The complainants joined deposited  an amount of Rs.17,000/- on 18-10-2002 under certificate No.2425, Rs.12,309/- on 24-11-2002 under certificate No.1279, Rs.15,000/- on 23-8-2003 under certificate No.2612, Rs.15,000/- on 23-3-2003 under certificate No.2613 and Rs.21,837/- on 18-4-2003 under certificate No.2637 and the first complainant individually deposited  an amount of Rs.21,837/- on 18-4-2003 under certificate No.2638 and Rs.13,792/- on 18-4-2003 under certificate No.2645.  After maturity of the two deposits, the complainants returned the deposits to opposite party No.2 duly signed for payment but the opposite parties paid only interest upto 18-10-2003 and 24-10-2003 respectively but did not pay the principal amount.  The complainant got issued a registered notice to opposite party No.2 on 29-2-2004 but did not get any reply.  Opposite party No.2 also paid interest upto 29-2-2004 by issuing post dated interest warrants.  The complainant got issued another notice dated 6-2-2004 demanding principal amount but did not receive any reply.  Hence the complaint for a direction to the opposite parties to pay the principal amount of Rs.1,16,775/- with interest at 14 percent p.a. from the date of maturity and for items 3 to 7 as per condition No.2 of the deposit certificates together with compensation and costs.

            Opposite parties were served and failed to appear before the Forum and hence they were set exparte.

            The District Forum based on the pleadings put forward allowed the complaint in part directing opposite parties 1 and 2 to pay an amount of Rs.29,309/- with interest at 9 percent p.a. from the date of complaint till realization and to pay Rs.87,446/- with interest at 9 percent p.a. from the date of maturity till realization within one month from the date of receipt of order.

            Aggrieved by the said order, opposite party No.1 preferred this appeal.

            The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the District Forum erred in delivering the order within a period of one month of lodging the complaint in a first adjourned sitting and failed to give reasonable opportunity to them. He submitted that the Forum erred in holding that the appellant is equally responsible with opposite party No.2 although the appellant is only an employee in the proprietrix concern of opposite party No.2.  He further contended that the appellant has done postman job by forwarding the copy of receipt filed by the complainant himself along with his complaint and ought to have observed that he has mentioned in the receipt issued by him that he received the remittance for ‘onward transmission’ and hence no relief can be ordered against him.  He also submitted that by adding the name of the appellant, the complainants played a foul play to attract the jurisdiction of the District Forum.  He submitted that the District Forum erred in holding that the appellant is also responsible He further submitted that the District Forum erred in admitting P.P.No.27/2004 in C.D.No.13/2004 against the appellant and issuing N.B.W., though the appellant was no more in the service of the firm of opposite party No.2 as its Manager

            We observe from the record that the C.D. was filed on 1-3-2004 and a notice was issued to both the opposite parties and notices was received and acknowledged by appellant/opposite party No.1 on 13-3-2004.  There is a clear stamp with the name of Mr.K.Siva Prasad, Branch Manager, Tulluri Investments along with a signature.  Therefore, the contention of appellant/opposite party No.1 that he has not received notice is unsustainable. 

            The second contention of the appellant/opposite party No.1 is that the District Forum did not give reasonable opportunity to them and completed the entire proceedings within a month.  It is observed from the record that the C.D. was filed on 1-3-2004 and was disposed of on 24-4-2004.  It is also observed from the record that the case was posted for final hearing on 15-4-2004 and the opposite parties were set exparte.  We find force in the contention of the counsel for appellant/opposite party No.1 that no reasonable opportunity was given to him for presenting his case before the District Forum.  We heard the learned counsel for appellant at length.  He drew our attention to the very cause title of the complaint in which the appellant’s designation is written as Branch Manager, Tulluri Investments.  It is also pertinent to note that opposite party No.2 is the Proprietrix/authorized signatory and appellant is admittedly a Branch manager of the said company. 

            It is the case of the learned counsel for the respondents/complainants that the respondents have jointly deposited  an amount of Rs.17,000/- on 18-10-2002 under certificate No.2425, Rs.12,309/- on 24-11-2002 under certificate No.1279, Rs.15,000/- on 23-8-2003 under certificate No.2612, Rs.15,000/- on 23-3-2003 under certificate No.2613 and Rs.21,837/- on 18-4-2003 under certificate No.2637 and the first complainant individually deposited  an amount of Rs.21,837/- on 18-4-2003 under certificate No.2638 and Rs.13,792/- on 18-4-2003 under certificate No.2645.  After maturity of the two deposits, the complainants returned the deposits to opposite party No.2 duly signed for payment but the opposite parties paid only interest upto 18-10-2003 and 24-10-2003 respectively but did not pay the principal amount.  The complainant got issued a registered notice to opposite party No.2 on 29-2-2004 but did not get any reply.  Opposite party No.2 also paid interest upto 29-2-2004 by issuing post dated interest warrants.  The respondents also issued another registered notice dated 6-2-2004 demanding the principal amount but opposite party No.2 did not give any reply.   Therefore, he submitted that both the opposite parties are jointly and severally responsible for payment and sought to sustain the order of the District Forum.

            The very case of the complainants as observed from the record is that  respondent/opposite party No.2 is the proprietrix and the deposit certificates filed by the complainants show the signature of the proprietrix/authorized signatory, who is opposite party No.2 in the main complaint.  It is pertinent to note that the legal notices dated 10-1-2004 and 6-2-2004 respectively got issued by the complainants were addressed to opposite party No.2 only.  The District Forum erred in making even the appellant/opposite party No.1 liable.  We also observe that the District Forum has not given any opportunity to appellant to present his case and has disposed of the case in 54 days of filing of the complaint.  Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that when the appellant/opposite party No.1 is admittedly a Branch Manager and has not signed anywhere on the deposit certificates.  The legal notices were addressed by the complainants only to opposite party No.2, who is the propritrix, also replied to the said notices and therefore we hold that appellant/opposite party No.1 is not liable for payment along with opposite party No.2.

            In the result this appeal is allowed and the order of the District Forum is set aside with respect to appellant/opposite party No.1 only.  There shall be no order as to costs.

PRESIDENT.  LADY MEMBER  MALE MEMBER.

JM                                                                               Dated 31-7-2008.