STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs. D.SUBBA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The state Bank of India which is the opposite party no.1 in C.C.No.338 of 2007 and CC No.337 of 2007 is the appellant. The appeal is directed against the orders passed by the District Forum-II, Visakhapatnam.

(2.) Both the appeals have been filed assailing the orders passed in CC 338 of 2007 and CC No.337 of 2007 whereby the District Forum has passed award granting compensation of an amount of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant in CC No.338 of 2007 and Rs.10,000/- to the complainant in C.C.No.337 of 2007. The facts of both the cases being identical in nature, the two appeals have been taken up for disposal by a common order. F.A.No.1617 of 2008 is taken as the lead case. For the sake of convenience the parties are referred to as they have been arrayed in the complaint.

(3.) The factual matrix of the case is that the complainant had submitted application form along with DD bearing No.253534 dated 8.9.2005 for Rs.250/- to the opposite party no.1 for the post of Legal Trainee to the opposite party no.2. The complainant had not received the hall ticket till four days to the date of examination. The opposite party no.2 advised the candidates who did not receive call letters to come directly to the examination centre and collect the same there. The complainant was informed by the opposite party no.2 at the examination centre that his application was rejected for the reason that the demand draft enclosed to his application was not signed by the opposite party no.1. The complainant attributed negligence to the opposite party no.1 for his failure to get the hall ticket whereas the opposite party no.1 while admitting the issuance of the demand draft in favour of the opposite party no.2 denied that there was deficiency of service and that the complainant lost better opportunity to settle in life by getting a good job. The opposite party no.1 had cast duty on the complainant to verify the particulars on the demand draft including the aspect of signature. The opposite party no.1 had taken the plea that the legal notice was issued after a lapse of one year and its counsel had given a reply dated 31.8.2006 to the complainants counsel.