A. Seenaiaah Vs. the Head Post Master, Head Post Office, Nellore - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1147873
CourtAndhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided OnApr-04-2014
Case NumberFA No. 299 of 2013 against CC.No. 15 of 2011 District Consumer Forum, Nellore
JudgeGOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, PRESIDENT & THE HONOURABLE MR. T. ASHOK KUMAR, MEMBER
AppellantA. Seenaiaah
RespondentThe Head Post Master, Head Post Office, Nellore
Excerpt:
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.
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.