A. Seenaiaah Vs. the Head Post Master, Head Post Office, Nellore

A. Seenaiaah vs The Head Post Master, Head Post Office, Nellore

Type Court Judgment Court Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad Decided Apr 04, 2014

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1147873

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1147873
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Judge: Gopala Krishna Tamada, President &Amp; the Honourable Mr. T. Ashok Kumar, Member
Decided On: Apr 04, 2014
Case Number: FA No. 299 of 2013 against CC.No. 15 of 2011 District Consumer Forum, Nellore
Subject: Education

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Education

Key legal issue: Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

A. Seenaiaah

Respondent

The Head Post Master, Head Post Office, Nellore

Excerpt

.....complainant/appellant herein has not chosen to get any documents marked, whereas the opposite party got examined the head post master as r.w.1 and exs.b.1 to b.6 were marked on its behalf. having considered the oral and documentary evidence, the district forum dismissed the complaint by its order dated 18.02.2013. the same is questioned by the said complainant stating that he is the son of the brother-in-law of late yanadamma and in those circumstances, he is entitled for the said f.d.rs. heard. we are unable to appreciate the said submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant. exs.b.1 to b.5 clearly indicate that one chintha subrahmanyam is the nominee as per the fdrs of late yanadamma. that apart u/s.68 of the evidence act a will whether registered or not has to be proved by way of cogent evidence during the course of trial. when chintha subrahmanyam is shown as nominee as per exs.b.1 to b.5 and even if will is executed in favour of the appellant as the same requires to be proved u/s.68 of the indian evidence act we cannot hold that there is deficiency of service and this commission/district forum has no jurisdiction. the district forum has rightly dismissed the complaint which in our considered view needs no interference. accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.

Full Judgment

Oral Order: (Gopalakrishna Tamada, President)

A.Seenaiah, S/o.Venkaiah, a resident of Nellore claiming to be the nominee of late A.Yanadamma approached the District Forum, Nellore and filed CC.No.15/2011 stating that the said Yanadamma during her life time executed a Will on 16.07.2007 bequeathing her property, particularly the F.D.Rs in his favour. After her death i.e. on 08.09.2007 as per the nomination made by her he is entitled to the FDRs and accordingly issued a legal notice to the opposite party i.e. respondent herein on 30.07.2010 for payment of the said FDRs. As the respondent did not respond, complaining deficiency of service, the said Seenaiah filed the said complaint.

The same was opposed by the opposite party/respondent herein stating that one Chintha Subrahmanyam is the nominee of the said Yanadamma and the Seenaiah has nothing to do with the said Yanadamma and in those circumstances it could not pay the claim amount.

The complainant/appellant herein has not chosen to get any documents marked, whereas the opposite party got examined the Head Post Master as R.W.1 and Exs.B.1 to B.6 were marked on its behalf.

Having considered the oral and documentary evidence, the District Forum dismissed the complaint by its order dated 18.02.2013.

The same is questioned by the said complainant stating that he is the son of the brother-in-law of late Yanadamma and in those circumstances, he is entitled for the said F.D.Rs.

Heard. We are unable to appreciate the said submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant. Exs.B.1 to B.5 clearly indicate that one Chintha Subrahmanyam is the nominee as per the FDRs of late Yanadamma. That apart u/s.68 of the Evidence Act a Will whether registered or not has to be proved by way of cogent evidence during the course of trial. When Chintha Subrahmanyam is shown as nominee as per Exs.B.1 to B.5 and even if Will is executed in favour of the appellant as the same requires to be proved u/s.68 of the Indian Evidence Act we cannot hold that there is deficiency of service and this Commission/District Forum has no jurisdiction. The District Forum has rightly dismissed the complaint which in our considered view needs no interference.

Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.

Same Court & Year Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission S... Same Parties A. Seenaiaah vs The Head Post Master, Head Post Office, Nellore Same Subject Education Same Judge Gopala Krishna Tamada, President &Amp; the Honourable Mr. T. ...