BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : HYDERABAD.

F.A.No. 861 OF 2020 AGAINST ORDERS IN C.C.101/2009 DISTRICT CONSUMER COMMISSION, KARIMNAGAR Between:

The Branch Manager, Andhra Bank, Metpally Town and Mandal.

………..Appellant/ Opposite Party No.1 And:

1. Mr.Sundaragiri Rajamalliah, S/o Lingam, Aged : 26 years, Occ.: Labour, R/o Aathmakur Village of Metpally Mandal of Karimnagar Dist.

Now residing and working at Mascow Tech Services, LLc Post Box No.26311, Sharja, UAE, Represented by his Power of Attorney Holder, Cherlapaly Hanmandla, S/o Chinna Anjaiah, Age : 30 years, Occ.: Vegetable Market, R/o Metpally Proper & Mandal of Karimnagar District.

2. Mr.Merugu Shanker, S/o Narsa Goud, Age : 32 years, Occ.: Toddy Tapper, R/o Peddapur, V/o Korutla Maridal, Karimnagar District, Telangana.

........Respondents/Complainants No.1 & 2

3. The Branch Post Master, Peddapur Post Office, Karimnagar.

…………..Respondent No.3/OP No.2 (Respondent No.3 is not necessary party in this appeal).

Counsel for the Appellant/Opposite Party No.1 : Sri B.Praveen Kumar.

Counsel for the Respondents/Complainants No.1 & 2 :

Sri K.Narsa Goud.

For the Respondent No.3/Opposite Party No.2 :

Not necessary party QUORUM :

HON’BLE SMT. MEENA RAMANATHAN, I/c PRESIDENT &

HON’BLE SRI. V.V.SESHUBABU, MEMBER – (JUDICIAL)

TUESDAY, THE 28t h DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND TWENTY FIVE **********

Order : (PER HON’BLE SRI. V.V.SESHUBABU, MEMBER – JUDICIAL)

1. The appeal is filed u/s 15 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the Opposite Party No.1 aggrieved by the order dated 14.10.2020 in CC 101/2009 passed by the District Consumer Commission, where under the opposite party No.1 was directed to pay Rs.1,64,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of complaint i.e. 29.06.2009 till realization besides, costs of Rs.5,000/- within one month from the date of receipt of this order and also dismissed the complaint against Opposite Party No.2.

2. The brief averments of the complaint are that the complainant No.2 is the brother-in-law of Mr.Sundaragiri Rajamalliah, who is the account holder with the opposite party No.1 vide NRI Account No.SBNRE/51484; that the account holder has been working in Sharjah in Moscow Tech Services, LLC; that the complainant No.2 financed the account holder to go to Sharjah; that towards discharge of his debt, the account holder sent Rs.1,64,000/- by way of cheque bearing No.286871, dated 27.06.2008 to the complainant No.2, who presented the cheque across the counter for collection and the Manager of the opposite party No.1 informed that the cheque does not bear the signature of account holder and asked the complainant No.2 to fetch another cheque; that the Manager of opposite party No.1 retained the title deed and copy of the ration card containing signatures of complainant No.2 in telugu with him.

3. It is the further contention of the complainant No.1 that on the information given by the complainant No.2 over phone, the account holder sent another cheque bearing No.286873, dated 04.07.2008 to the complainant No.2, but due to collusion between the opposite party No.1 & 2, said cover was not served on complainant No.2; that taking advantage of the ignorance and illiteracy of the complainant No.2, the opposite parties have themselves encahsed the cheque on 04.07.2008 by forging signature of complainant No.2 in English without giving any information to the complainant No.2 and without asking for any identity proof; that when the complainant No.2 again contacted the account holder for not receiving the cheque, came to know that it was already dispatched in a cover; that the complainant No.2 approached the opposite party No.2 and enquired about the cover, who pleaded no knowledge; that in the meanwhile, the account holder came down to the native village and gave complaint in Metpally P.S. against the opposite parties and after sometime left for Sharjah; that while leaving executed GPA in favour of complainant No.1 to represent on his behalf; that the comp