SAPA CHANDRAMOULI Vs. YERRAM SWAROOPA RANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The case of the appellant/respondent in F. A. No.869/1997 is that the Medak District Forum in its order dated 10.11.1997 in O. P. No.125/1997 erred in "directing the respondent to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- with interest thereon a the rate of 12% per annum from 31.8.1997 (date of maturity of Deposit Certificate, Ex. B-5) and costs of Rs.500/- to the respondent as the opposite party committed deficiency in service by wrongly paying the amount under Ex. B-5, under Ex. B-6 endorsement of discharge, to her husband. The appellant further contends that Y. Ramesh, the husband of the complainant (respondent in this appeal) singed Ex. B-l application form and also the declaration of the complainant on behalf of her on Ex. B-l and also that he made all the monthly payments on behalf of the complainant. Therefore Y. Ramesh was in fact her deemed agent and in that capacity withdrew the amount on its maturity.

(2.) The case of the respondent/complainant, who was present herself, is that the appellant started a scheme under the name of "tirumala Enterprises" at Toopran under the terms and conditions mentioned in Ex. A-l circulated by him; that each member had to pay a sum of Rs.250/-per month for 30 months; that each member would be paid a sum of Rs.10,000/- after 60 months; that there would be draw every month; that the lucky prize winner would be given Chetak Scooter or a Hero Honda Motor Cycle; that she joined the scheme as a member-under Membership No.99, that Ex. A-2 pass book was issued on 10.10.1992 to her in her name; that she herself paid and the 30 instalments under Exs. A- 3 to A-31 receipts given to her and that the payments made by her were recorded in Ex. A- 2 pass book. She claimed that she and her husband are now living separately, hence the amount should not have been given to him.

(3.) We notice that all the receipts were given in the name of Y. Swaroopa Rani even though it was claimed by the appellant that the said amounts were deposited by her husband, Y. Ramesh. However to substantiate that claim no material was there - neither produced Y. Ramesh, nor any affidavit from him, nor an admitted signature of Y. Ramesh. No material was adduced to establish that the so called signature of Y. Ramesh in Ex. B-5 (marked as Ex. B-6) is in fact that of Y. Ramesh. Even assuming the appellant was able to prove that, he did not satisfactorily explain why a receipt was not taken from the complainant as in the case of Exs. A-3 to A-31. Therefore legally the appellant could not establish that the amount was received by the respondent/complainant. Therefore, no payment to her was made out. Hence there is deficiency in service.