SANJEEV Vs. PROPRIETOR HIMALAYA EQUIPMENTS SALE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Registry has reported delay of 60 days' in filing the present revision petition for which an application for condonation of delay has been filed by petitioner, for condonation of delay of 58 days'. Be that as it may, it seems from the reasonings assigned that considerable time was lost in taking approval from the Head Office, located at Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh, as also due to delay in transit on account of mentioning of wrong address of the lawyer in the postal docket. For all these reasons, we condone the delay.

(2.) Let us now advert to the merits of this case. The Government of India floated a Scheme, in the Name and Style of "Credit Guarantee Fund", to provide self-employment to the unemployed youths, on 28.04.2006. Sanjeev, the complainant/petitioner herein, approached the Corporation Bank, OP2/respondent No.2 herein, as arrayed in the complaint, for financial assistance. Respondent No.2 sanctioned a sum of Rs.10,00,000/-. The complainant/petitioner sent a Demand Draft to the Proprietor, Himalaya Equipments Sale, Head Office, respondent No.1, towards the cost of machinery. OP1 received the said Demand Draft, but did not supply the machinery, though several demands were made. The complainant submitted that he received certain orders from customers, but because of non-delivery of machinery, he had to suffer loss to the tune of Rs.60,000/-. Consequently, he filed a complaint before the District Forum.

(3.) The District Forum dismissed the complaint on the ground that it was a civil matter. However, the State Commission accepted the appeal and remanded the case back to the District Forum. The main controversy was that the complainant had denied the signatures, said to have been taken by OP1, on the Bill, for having supplied the machinery.