MARRIPALLI PUSHPALATHA Vs. A.SUDARSHAN REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is the unsuccessful complainant before the District Forum, Karimnagar in CD 197/2004 and on the dismissal of the claim filed to recover the FDR amount of Rs.10000/- due and payable by the respondent/OP Finance company after maturity date, this appeal is filed assailing the order as erroneous and sought it to be set aside. The facts of the case disclose that Opposite Party had established a finance company and invited deposits to pay double the amounts after a period of 5 years by the date of maturity. So the complainant for herself and in favour of her children had invested Rs.2000/- each for a period of 51/2 years and obtained cash receipts from the respondent/OP . According to the complainant even after 24.7.2004 Opposite Party failed to refund it which act or omission is attributed as deficiency in service.

(2.) The Opposite Party even though served by the notice had remained absent, so was set exparte. During enquiry the complainants had filed Ex. A1 to A5 the respective FD receipts of herself and her children along with evidence affidavit to prove her claim.

(3.) The District Forum on the basis of the evidence adduced had dismissed the claim on the following grounds. 1. That the complainant had not filed authorization letter of family members for recovery of the amounts due under the FDRs 2. As per Ex. A1 to A5 FDRs the maturity dates are 2.9.98 and 21.8.98 , while so, the complaint was filed on 8.12.2004 , i.e., after lapse of six years from the date of maturity. 3.That in the absence of filing of any delay condonation petition the claim filed beyond the period of two years is barred.