State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
P.Vishnu Priya And 2 Others R.R vs Ch.Bharathi Hyderabad on 1 July, 2008
BEFORE THE A BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION - AT HYDERABAD. FAIA.No.1529/2008 against order in FA.No.779/2005. Between- 1.P.Vishnu Priya, Aged about 36 years, D/o.P.Ram Mohan, H.No.356/A, 4th Floor, Janapriya Township, Mallapuram, R.R.District. 2.P.Ram Mohan, Aged about 67 years, S/o.Madhura Murthy, H.No.1-9-615, Jamai Osmania Road, Adikmet, Vidyanagar, Hyderabad 44. 3.Smt.P.Susheela, Aged about 57 years, W/o.P.Ram Mohan, H.No.1-9-615, Jamai Osmania Road, Adikmet, Vidyanagar, Hyderabad 500 044. Appellants/O.Ps. 1 to 3. And Ch.Bharathi, W/o.Ch.Brahmaji, Aged about 26 years, R/o.H.No.B-24, F/4, Vignanpuri Colony, Vidyanagar, Hyderabad 44. Respondent/Complainant. Counsel for the Appellants - Smt.Pushpinder Kaur. Counsel for the Respondent - Admn.Stage. QUORUM- THE HONBLE MR.JUSTICE D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT, AND SRI G. BHOOPATHI REDDY, HONBLE MALE MEMBER.
TUESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF JULY, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT.
Oral Order (Per Honble Mr.Justice D.Appa Rao, President)
-------
Heard.
1. This is an application filed by the opposite parties to recall the order of this Commission dt. 28.05.2008 on the ground that the order was obtained by the respondent by playing fraud.
2. The petitioners are appellants in FA.No.779/2005. On the complaint filed by Ch.Bharathi under Consumer Protection Act for recovery of Rs.2,75,000/- with interest at 24 percent per annum, the same was allowed by the District Forum by order dated 20.04.2005. Aggrieved by the said order, the opposite parties, the petitioners herein preferred FA.No.779/2005. By order dated 28.05.2008, the appeal was dismissed with costs of Rs.1,000/-.
3. Today, on 01.07.2008 they came up with this application alleging that fraud was played on this Court while obtaining orders. It is alleged that subsequent to the filing of CD 1180/2004 the complainant filed CC.No.1564/2004 against Sri S.Dwarakanath, the son-in-law of the 2nd petitioner, for an offence under Sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. It seems the complainant deposed in the said Criminal Case that she paid Rs.2,75,000/- to P.Ram Mohan Rao (one of the petitioners) Rs.1,75,000/- by way of cheque and Rs.1,00,000/- by way of cash. She deposed in the cross examination that there was no money transaction between her and P. Ram Mohan Rao during that one month after execution of P.1 and P.2 (promissory notes). She further stated in her cross examination that it is mentioned in the surety column that S.Dwarakanath agreed to repay the promissory note amount, if Ch.Bharathi failed to repay the promissory note on demand. This was contrary to the pleadings made in the CD. She never stated about the agreement of sale dt.30.04.2003. This amounts to fraud and therefore, the judgment has to be recalled.
4. We have gone through the record. At the outset, we may state that the very complainant filed CC.No.1564/2004 against one S.Dwarakanath for an offence under Sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.. The accused, S.Dwarakanath, is not a party to the C.D. before the Consumer Forum or in the Appeal. The stand taken by the complainant was that the accused stood as surety for the loan amount and executed surety bond in her favour and subsequently the cheques that were given to her when presented were bounced. Basing on that she filed the criminal complaint. S.Dwarakanath was acquitted by order dated 16.06.2008, subsequent to the order in the appeal passed by this Commission. Obviously, taking inspiration from the said judgment, this petition must have been processed. Absolutely, we do not see any connection between the case presented by her in the CD and the criminal complaint made by her against S.Dwarakanath. May be in view of the relationship between P.Ram Mohan Rao, the 2nd petitioner and S.Dwarakanath and some of transactions were overlapping. However, it would not in any way prove that the complainant in the CD had played fraud and presented altogether a different version. At no time this contention was taken. We reiterate that emboldened by the order of acquittal they came up with this application, alleging that fraud was played on the court.
5. We have perused the record and we do not see any error or fraud played by the complainant as alleged. There are absolutely no merits in this petition.
Accordingly, the petition is rejected.
PRESIDENT MALE MEMBER Dt-01.07.2008.
Vvr.