B YASODHA Vs. BANKING OMBUDSMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a proprietor of Jalajasree Silk Sareees. She is aggrieved by an award dated 7-12-1999 of Banking Ombudsman (Andhra Pradesh), the first respondent herein in complaint No.161/98-99 whereby and whereunder the first respondent directed the third respondent to pay a sum of Rs. 1,65,455/- (Rupees one lakh sixty five thousand four hundred and fifty five only) i.e., covered by two demand Drafts dated 14-9-1998 and 15-10-1998 purchased by the second respondent therein.

(2.) The fourth respondent herein filedcomplaint No.161/98-99 before the first respondent against respondents 1, 2 & 3 herein as well as the Regional Manager of Indian Bank, Chittoor praying him to enquire into the matter and direct the third respondent herein to make good the loss sustained by the complainant. It is his case before the first respondent that he is carrying on business in Silk Sarees in the name and style of M/s. Jalajasree Silk Sarees; that he is having an account with Chittoor District Cooperative Central Bank, Madanapalli Brach; that he and the petitioner herein are dealing in Silk Sarees with the second respondent; that after receiving stock from the petitioner as well as fourth respondent, the second respondent issued invoices for consignment of sales accounts for the period from August 1998 to December 1998, and in the said transaction the second respondent issued two Demand Drafts in favour of the firm of the fourth respondent M/s. Jalajasree Silk Sarees, Madanapalli and sent them through the petitioner herein to deliver the same to the fourth respondent; that the petitioner played fraud and got the Demand Drafts credited to her account by misrepresenting facts to the third respondent; that the fourth respondent raised objection with the third respondent, in vain and therefore, he sought relief as mentioned herein above.

(3.) The first respondent issued notice tothe third respondent Bank and based on the same passed award on 7-12-1999 directing as above. Curiously no notice was issued by the first respondent nor the petitioner was shown as opposite party, in spite of the fact that the fourth respondent in his complaint filed on 10-7-1999 has also arrayed the petitioner herein as second respondent.