SANJEEV vs Proprietor Himalaya Equipments Sale

HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner. Registry has reported delay of 60 days '' in filing the present revision petition for which an application for condonation of delay has been filed by petitioner, for condonation of delay of 58 days ''. Be that as it may, it seems from the reasonings assigned that considerable time was lost in taking approval from the Head Office, located at Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh, as also due to delay in transit on account of mentioning of wrong address of the lawyer in the postal docket. For all these reasons, we condone the delay.

LET us now advert to the merits of this case. The Government of India floated a Scheme, in the Name and Style of "Credit Guarantee Fund ", to provide self-employment to the unemployed youths, on 28.04.2006. Sanjeev, the complainant/petitioner herein, approached the Corporation Bank, OP2/respondent No.2 herein, as arrayed in the complaint, for financial assistance. Respondent No.2 sanctioned a sum of Rs.10,00,000/-. The complainant/petitioner sent a Demand Draft to the Proprietor, Himalaya Equipments Sale, Head Office, respondent No.1, towards the cost of machinery. OP1 received the said Demand Draft, but did not supply the machinery, though several demands were made. The complainant submitted that he received certain orders from customers, but because of non-delivery of machinery, he had to suffer loss to the tune of Rs.60,000/-. Consequently, he filed a complaint before the District Forum. The District Forum dismissed the complaint on the ground that it was a civil matter. However, the State Commission accepted the appeal and remanded the case back to the District Forum. The main controversy was that the complainant had denied the signatures, said to have been taken by OP1, on the Bill, for having supplied the machinery.

NONE of the parties led the evidence despite the fact that the matter was remanded to the District Forum on this point only. Consequently, the District Forum dismissed the complaint and the State Commission also dismissed the appeal.

WE have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. It must be borne in mind that it is the complainant and nobody else, who is to carry the ball in proving his case. In case OP1 produces the Invoice and the said Invoice purports to be signed by the Complainant, the complainant must rebut that kind of evidence. The opinion of a Handwriting Expert would have formed the best evidence in this case. However, no effort was made to get the signatures examined by the Handwriting Expert. The case was remanded only on this question, but no effort was made by the complainant to produce some evidence. The Corporation Bank was proceeded against ex-parte. Even at the time of filing this revision petition, no new evidence, with the request to remand the case was made. No effort was made to summon the Bank employee in support of the petitioner ''s case, because it had corresponded with respondent No.2. The respondent No.2 has produced the copy of the Bill, dated 20.04.2007, as per the Purchase Order, dated 21.12.2007, but the respondent has denied his signature. Consequently, he should prove that this signature does not pertain to him. There are concurrent findings by both the fora below. We find no illegality or infirmity in their orders. The revision petition is lame of strength and it is, therefore, dismissed.