NUNNA CHANDRASEKHRA RAO Vs. NATHA PRABHAKAR RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The unsuccessful complainant in C. D. No.185/96 on the file of District Forum, Nellore is the appellant. His case is that he deposited Rs.75,000/- on 4.12.1992 in M/s. Rajiv Finance carried on by opposite parties 1 and 2 as Partner and Managing Partner respectively. He obtained 25 FDRs of face value of Rs.2,000/- each and another 25 FDRs of face value of Rs.1,000/- each. After two years opposite parties promised to pay Rs.2,960/- for the FDRs of Rs.2,000/- and Rs.1,480/- for the FDRs of Rs.1,000/-. However, on completion of two years, in spite of several demands and also through legal notice the amount was not paid. Hence he approached the District Forum.

(2.) Both the opposite parties denied the deposit of the money or issuance of the FDRs stating that the complaint was instigated by one Kommuru Sudhakara Rao who is the maternal uncle of complainant who was running the said M/s. Rajiv Finance who took the signatures of the opposite parties on some FDRs on the ostensible plea that he would collect moneys from the prospective depositors and he fabricated these documents. The District Forum accepted the story put up by the opposite parties. It also found by saying that said Kommuru Sudhakara Rao, maternal uncle of complainant obtained their signatures on some FDRs does not mean that the respondents admitted their signatures. Finally the District Forum observed that this is a fit case to go to Civil Court for proper decision, as it is not possible to decide these issues in these proceedings.

(3.) The Apex Court in a recent judgment J J MERCHANT v/s SHRINATH CHATURVEDI, 2002 3 CPJ 8 (SC)=air 2002 SC 2931 observed that Redressal Agencies constituted under Consumer Protection Act cannot relegate functions assigned to them to the Civil Court on the ground that complicated questions are involved in a given case. It is further observed that National Commission was headed by a former Judge of Supreme Court and the State Commission by a former Judge of High Court as such it cannot be said that they could not decide the questions of facts of law.