Syndicate Bank

adminadmin Administrator
ORDER [FONT=&quot]By G. Yadunadhan, President:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] The case of the complainant is that complainant’s wife Mrs. Jisha was a Post Graduate Degree holder, eligible for applying for UGC test for Junior & Research Fellowship and eligibile for Lectureship conducted by Human Resource Development Group, Council of Scientific and Industrial Research, New Delhi. As per notification application forms with regard to the above said UGC test were exclusively available with Syndicate Bank, Panniyankara Branch in the Malabar region. The cost of the application form for OBC category was Rs.200/-. Complainant purchased a set of application, bearing No.84103, as stated above for his wife after remitting Rs.200/- . After resuming his house, the complainant and his wife carefully studied the application form and it was noted that the space provided for affixing signature and seal of the issuing bank where it is specifically printed as ‘for bank use only’ in the application form remain vacant. It was clear that the application form would be considered unauthorized unless it contains the seal and signature of the issuing bank. The said defect crept in the application form due to the reckless and careless dealing of the opposite parties in selling the application forms. It was the foremost duty of the first opposite party to see that its seal and signature were placed at the appropriate place while issuing application form to the complainant after receiving the prescribed fees. Therefore complainant seeking relief against opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.10000/- with 12% interest and also to pay cost of this proceedings.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] Opposite parties 1 and 2 entered in appearance and filed their version. Opposite parties admitted that 1st opposite party has been entrusted with the sale of (CSIR, JFF/NET) application form for the last several years. The application forms are sold twice in a year, i.e., during September and March. There is only one type of information bulletin, which contains the application form. The cost for the same varies depending upon the category of the applicant (General –Rs.400; OBC –Rs.200/-;SC/ST/PH – Rs.100/-). The application form, which is inside the information bulletin, has to be signed by the authorized representatives of the bank. The procedure adopted for the sale of application form is as stated below:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] The applicant should fill up a pay-in-slip specially designed for the purpose, mentioning the name, category and amount. Cash is to be paid to the cashier who issues the Information Bulletin noting the amount in the application form and instructs the applicant to get it signed by the Branch Manager. The instructions to the applicants are not only contained in the Bulletin but are also displayed very prominently in the branch premises.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] It is true that an application bearing No.84013 was issued to Smt. Jisha on 29.3.2006 who had paid Rs.200/-. The application was sold to her on the said date by around 1 o’clock in the noon. Immediately when the Information Bulletin is handed over to the complainant by the cashier, he was asked to obtain the seal and signature of the Branch Manager. Not heeding the words of the cashier, the complainant went away from the branch premises without obtaining seal/signature of the Manager. By about 3 pm. on the very same day the complainant came to the branch and shouted at the staff sitting at the counter and also approached the cashier and enquired in harsh words about issuing the application form without seal and signature, whereupon cashier reminded him that he was instructed to obtain the same and also shown the complainant the instructions displayed in the branch premises, which clearly says that the applicants are to get the signature and seal of the Branch Manager after obtaining information bulletin (booklet) and before leaving the branch premises. On the same day at about 3 o’ clock complainant came to the branch and he was asked to get the signature of the Branch manager in the application form. As the complainant was in a fighting mood, he refused to get the signature and seal in the application form. As the opposite party has to return the unsold information bulletins to the appropriate authority, only after sale of the application forms the seal and signature of the branch will be affixed. As there was no deficiency on the part of the opposite parties the complaint has to be dismissed with costs.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] Points for consideration: Whether any deficiency on the part of the opposite parties?[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] Complainant was examined as PW1. Exts. A1 to A3 were marked on the side of the complainant. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Sri. M.K. Aravindakshan, then the Asst. Manager, Syndicate Bank, Panniyankara Branch was examined as RW1. Ext. B1 was marked on the side of the opposite parties.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] On perusal of the Ext. A1 document, it is clearly shows that the information bulletin was not available except in Syndicate Bank, Panniyankara Branch in the Malabar region. This fact clearly admitted by the opposite parties. A specific column in the bulletin should be filled by the bank only after receiving the amount of Rs.200/-. It is to be signed and sealed by opposite party No.2. But it was not done by opposite party No.2. In para 5 of the version filed by the opposite parties, it is clearly stated that the application was sold to her on the said date by around 1 o’ clock in the noon. Immediately when the bulletin is handed over to the complainant by the cashier, he was asked to obtain the seal and signature of the Branch Manager. Complainant went away from the branch premises without obtaining seal and signature. Again in para 6 of the version, at about 3 o’ clock on the same day also, when the complainant came to the branch, he was asked to get the signature of the Manager in the application form. He refused to get the signature and seal of the branch manager in the application form. As the opposite party has to resubmit the unsold information bulletin to the appropriate authority only after sale of the application forms the seal and signature of the branch Manager will be affixed. From the version, opposite parties admitted that the information bulletin was sold to the complainant for Rs.200/-. If so, what prevents them to put the signature and seal in the specific space allotted in the bulletin “for bank use only”. It is the duty of the opposite party to put signature and seal of the Branch Manager in the specific column. They cannot escape from the liability from the eyes of law. If the particular officer does his work properly, the dispute can be avoided. This shows that there is clear negligence and deficiency on the part of the opposite parties. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] Therefore petition is allowed and the opposite parties are directed to pay a compensation of Rs.5000/- and a cost of Rs.500/- to the complainant. The amount shall be paid by the opposite parties 1 and 2 and that amount can be realized from the officer who was in-charge of delivering the Ext. A1 document on the particular day. Opposite parties are directed to comply the order within 30 days on the receipt of the copy of this order.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]

Comments

  • adminadmin Administrator
    edited September 2009
    ORDER


    JUDGEMENT By Sri. N.H. Savalagi, President. This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of Consumer Protection Act by the complainant Gyanachand Choudhari against the two O.P. (1) Syndicate Bank Main Branch Raichur and (2) The General Manager Syndicate Bank Corporate Office, Bangalore for deficiency in service. Originally this complaint was dismissed by this Forum In the Appeal No. 22/08 the order of this Forum was set-aside and the matter remitted back to this Forum for fresh disposal after due notice to both the parties. After the remand of the case, on 25-09-08 notice of remand was issued be both the parties. In pursuance of the same, both the parties appeared through counsel on 04-11-08. 2. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:- The complainant used to invest money in Fixed deposits with Respondent NO-1 Bank in his name or in the names of his family members and had been regularly dealing with all his bank transactions with Respondent. He had invested Rs. 30,000/- in his name and Rs. 20,000/- in the name of his mother Smt. Soshar Bai W/o. Late Ratanlal as detailed below: Sl.No. SSD.No. FDR.No. Name Amount 1. 681 129597 Smt. Soshar Bai Rs. 20,000=00 2. 682 129598 Gyanchand Choudhary Rs. 30,000=00 The said FDRs were to mature in 1985. In the meantime the complainant and his mother were in need of money to meet out their legal necessities as such they obtained loan on the above said FDs along with their other FDs Receipts by surrendering the original FD Receipts with the Respondent No-1 Bank. The complainant and his mother cleared the said loans, out of the proceeds of the said other FDs receipts and money from their pocket. Accordingly Respondent NO-1 has returned the above said two original FD Receipts to the complainant after their loan account was fully cleared. Thereafter the complainant took up construction of his house and in the said process the FDRs were mis-placed and thus forget it. In the meantime the complainant had to virtually shut-down his business due to the fire incident in the State Warehouse Corporation Ltd., Raichur, wherein he had stored his goods and he had shifted to Rajasthan to eake his livelihood. After coming back to Raichur and during the course of white washing the house the complainant traced the above said original FDRs he requested the Respondent NO-1 Bank to renew the said FDRs. But the Respondent NO-1 went on dodging the matter on one or the other pre-text and in the mean time his mother Sashar Bai expired. He was deeply shocked at the irresponsible attitude of the Respondent NO-1 Bank and finally he wrote a letter on 22-09-03 and also made requests with Zonal Office, Regional Office, Head office etc. to re-new the said FDRs immediately. But Respondent NO-1 have only asked the complainant to wait for sometime till they get the permission from their head office and corporate office from Bangalore. On 14-02-2004 he was informed over phone to hand over the original to the Respondent NO-1. Accordingly the complainant sent the original FDRs along with his letter dt. 14-02-04 under POD, as he was to go to Puttaparthi for his health checkup in the night itself. The Respondent No-1 has neither renewed the said FDRs nor has paid its value on the contrary has illegally retained the same with it. All the repeated demands and reminders made to Respondents went in vain. The Respondent NO-2 has informed that Respondent No-1 has been informed to set right his grievance and he has been anxiously waiting for the word from Respondent but in vain. The failure of the Respondents to renew the said FDRs has amounted to deficiency in service which is at writ large. They are bound to follow the timely instructions of its customers and they cannot keep the instructions in isolation for such a long time. Hence for all these reasons the complainant has sought for direction to Respondent to produce the loan accounts, extracts and all related documents and to renew the two FDRs together with upto date accrued interest and to pay the value of the renewed FDs and further direction to pay compensation of sum equal to the renewed value of FDRs on account of their deficiency in service. 3. The Respondent No-1 has filed his written version which has been adopted by Respondent No-2. In the written version it is contended that the complaint is not maintainable and it is time barred. Further it is contended that on the two FDs the complainant and his mother has availed loan as per Loan Account No.LD 98/85 and LD 97/85 and accordingly the said original FD Receipts had been deposited with Respondent NO-1. The proceeds of the FDR No. 129597/681 and FDR No. 129596/682 have been adjusted on 09-10-1985 towards the loan account No.LD 98/85 and No.97/85 respectively. Hence the contention of the complainant that the said loan have been cleared from their pocket are all false and baseless. Further the contention of the complainant that Respondent NO-1 returned the said original FDs receipts to the complainant are all false and baseless. As the proceeds of the FDRs have been adjusted to the loan accounts, there arise no question of returning to him. The complainant has created a false story with an ulterior motive of gaining unlawfully. At no point of time the complainant has produced the said FDRs as the proceeds of the same were adjusted to the loan accounts. It is specifically denied that on 14-02-04 the complainant was informed over phone to hand over the original FDRs and accordingly he sent the original with letter dt. 14-02-04 under POD etc., The Respondent NO-1 has not at all received the original FDRs as contended by the complainant. It is also strange to note that the complainant resides within walk-able distance from the bank and instead of approaching the bank personally he sent the POD etc., which cannot be believed. Hence there is no on the part the Respondent NO-1 Bank and there is no deficiency in service. The complainant is a businessman and his conduct of keeping silence for abut (20) years is suspicious. The complainant is seeking the particulars of loan accounts pertaining to 1985 after lapse of (21) years and as the records are very old they have been destroyed as per rules. Therefore they are unable to produce the same. However the FDS, ledger extracts showing the details of adjustments made to the loan accounts regarding the proceeds of the said deposits are produced. Hence for all these reasons the Respondents have prayed for dismissal of the complaint with heavy cost. 4. During the course of trial in the first instance the complainant has filed his sworn-affidavit by way of examination in chief and on 15-06-07 he again filed his sworn-affidavit as further chief-examination and got marked in all (18) documents at Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-18. In rebuttal the Respondents have filed sworn-affidavit of Senior Manager of Respondent Bank as RW-1 and working Manager of Regional Office as RW-2 and have got marked two documents at Ex.R-1 & Ex.R-2. During the course of argument in the first instance the L.C. for OP filed original FDRs Ledger Register containing entries of Ex.R-1 & Ex.R-2 with consent of both sides, the original FDR Register has been marked as Ex.R-3 and the entries of Ex.R-1 and Ex.R-2 on Page No. 78 & 79 have been marked as Ex.R-3(a) Ex.R-3(b) and the entries regarding other FDRs of the complainant and his mother on Page No. 51 of Ex.R-3 has been marked as Ex.R-3(c). 5. As stated supra after the remand of the case, in pursuance of the notice, both the parties appeared through their respective counsel on 01-12-08. The LC for complainant has filed additional affidavit-evidence of the complainant (after the remand) and produced (3) more documents namely: (1) Original Pass Book pertaining to saving Account No. 1202, (2) Original Pass Book pertaining to Saving Account No. 4480 and (3) Original Pass Book pertaining to saving Account No. 13761 and these documents have been got marked as Ex.P-19 to Ex.P-21. The Respondents have not adduced any additional evidence after the remand of the case. 6. As seen above, the Hon’ble State Commission in the Appeal Order on Page No-2 in the last Para it is observed as under:- “No doubt there is a lapse on the part of the complainant in not moving the OP bank for renewal of the FD. But at the same time since there is no refusal to pay the amount till the demand made by the complainant, the claim cannot be thrown out on the ground of delay as it is a recurring cause of action”. Further, on Page No-3 in the last Para it is observed as under:- “If the amount payable under the said two FD has been adjusted to discharge the loan there is no reason for the OP to refuse to renew the FD Receipt in-respect of FDRs bearing No. 681 & 682 or to pay matured amount. In this regard there is no proper consideration by the District Forum. Therefore the matter requires reconsideration”. “Hence the matter is remitted to the District Forum to dispose of the matter afresh after due notice to both parties.” Therefore the Hon’ble State Commission has observed that there is no bar of limitation as it is a recurring cause of action and so the point of limitation needs no consideration. In this background and in the light of the dispute between the parties the following points arise for our consideration and determination: 1. Whether the complainant proves deficiency in service by the Respondents, as alleged.? 2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs as sought for.? 7. Our finding on the above points are as under:- 1. In the affirmative. 2. As per final order for the following. REASONS POINT NO.1 :- 8. It is the case of the complainant that he being a regular customer of Respondent No-1 Bank had invested Rs. 20,000/- in the name of his mother Smt. Soshar Bai and Rs. 30,000/- in his name under two FDRs bearing No. 125997 and 125998. The two FDRs were to mature in 1985. It is also his case that since he and his mother in need of money to meet their legal necessity, so they had obtained loan on the above said two FDRs along with their other FDRs by surrendering the original FDRs with Respondent No-1 Bank and subsequently they cleared the said loan out of the proceeds of their other FDRs and money from their pocket and accordingly after the loan account was fully cleared. Respondent No-1 Bank has returned the two original FDRs in this case. 9. The complainant has produced two FDRs at Ex.P-1 & Ex.P-2 and correspondence made between him and Respondents at Ex.P-3 to Ex.P-18 and after the remand of the case the complainant has produced the original Pass Book pertaining to his Current Account No. 1202 at Ex.P-19 and two original Pass book pertaining to Savings Account No. 4480 at Ex.P-20 & Ex.P-20(1) and original Pass book pertaining to Saving Account No. 13761 at Ex.P-21. The Respondents Bank have produced Attested Photo copy of FDRs Ledger extract bearing Folio No. 78 & 79 at Ex.R-1 & Ex.R-2 and also produced FDR Ledger Register at Ex.R-3 with relevant Folio Nos. 78 & 79 at Ex.R-3(a) & Ex.R-3(b). But the Respondents have not produced any document after the remand of the case. 10. It is specific case that the complainant as averred in Para-6 & 7 that after they cleared the loan on the two FDRs out of the proceed of their other FDRs and money from their pocket the Respondent No-1 has returned the two original FDRs in this case. It is further case of the complainant that after he took up construction of his house and in that process he mis-placed the FDRs and in the meantime he had to virtually shut-down his business due to the fire incident in the State Warehouse Corporation Ltd., Raichur, wherein he had stored his goods and so he had shifted to Rajasthan to eake his livelihood. After coming back to Raichur and during the course of white washing the house he traced the above said original FDRs and he requested the Respondent NO-1 Bank to renew the said FDRs. But the Respondent NO-1 went on dodging the matter on one or the other pre-text and in the mean time his mother Smt. Soshar Bai expired. It is also the case of the complainant that he was deeply shocked at the irresponsible attitude of the Respondent NO-1 Bank for renewing his FDRs so he finally wrote a letter dt. 22-09-03 with a request to the Zonal Office, Regional Office, Head office etc. to re-new the two FDRs but of no avail. Respondent NO-1 has only asked him to wait for sometime till they get the permission from their head office. Further, on 14-02-2004 he was informed over phone to hand over the two original to Respondent NO-1. Accordingly he sent the two original FDRs along with his letter dt. 14-02-04 under POD, as he was to go in that night to Puttaparthi for his health checkup. The two FDRs have been duly acknowledged by Respondent No-1. The Respondent No-1 has neither renewed the said FDRs nor has paid its value but has illegally retained the same with them in-spite of all the repeated demands and reminders. This attitude of the Respondents amounted to deficiency in service which is at writ large. 11. The complainant has produced two original FDRs at Ex.P-1 & Ex.P-2 and his letters dt. 22-09-03 at Ex.P-3 to the Respondent No-1 with copy to Assistant General Manager, Regional Office Bellary & Deputy General Manager, Zonal Office at Bangalore along with postal acknowledgements. He has also produced his another letter dt. 02-11-03 at Ex.P-6(1) addressed to Respondent No-1 Bank for renewal of the two FDRs with postal acknowledgement. He has also produced his another letter dr. 12-12-03 at Ex.P-7 addressed to Respondent No-1 by Courier Service with copies to Assistant General Manager, Bellary & Deputy General Manager, Bangalore requesting for renewal of two FDRs with Courier Delivery Service Note at Ex.P-8 to Ex.P-10. He has also produced his another letter dt. 14-02-04 at Ex.P-11 addressed to Respondent No-1 with copy to Assistant General Manager, Bellary & Deputy General Manager, Bangalore with Courier Consignment Note and Delivery Note at Ex.P-12(1) and Ex.P-12(2). Ex.P-13 is the letter dt. 25-02-04 issued by Respondent Regional Office at Bellary to the complainant stating that they have enquired the matter with their Raichur Main Branch and it was informed that the amount was adjusted to loan account. Ex.P-14 is the reminder letter of the complainant dt. 03-06-04 addressed to Assistant General Manager, Bangalore with request for renewal of the two Fdrs. Ex.P-14(1) to Ex.P-14(4) are the Courier Consignment Notes. Ex.P-15 is the letter of the Respondent Regional Office Bellary dt. 17-06-04 addressed to the complainant stating that the deposits have been closed on 09-10-85 and adjusted to LD A/c. No. 97/85 and for any clarification approach the Branch Manager Raichur (Respondent No-1). Ex.P-16 is the letter of the complainant dt. 21-06-04 addressed to the General Manager, Bangalore requesting for renewal of his two FDRs and despite of his several visits Raichur Branch Respondent No-1 is not in a position to furnish Statement of his Loan Account. Ex.P-17 is the Reply Letter of Respondent Corporate Office at Bangalore dt. 07-01-04 informing the complainant that his FDRs for Rs. 20,000/- & Rs. 30,000/- have been closed and adjusted to the loans for which the FDRs were taken as security and he was asked to produce the same at Respondent No-1 Branch, Raichur in case he has got any documentary proof of having closed his loan account by cash payments, for verifying their records and redress his grievances and further advised the Raichur Branch (Respondent No-1) to verify the records once again and to set right the things & redress his grievances in full. Ex.P-18 is the Registered Cover with affixed postal stamps & postal seal and affixture of Registered Receipts. 12. As seen from the correspondence made between the complainant and Respondent it shows that the complainant all the while since from 2003 onwards went on requesting for renewal of the FDRs by producing the same and the Respondent in their reply letters vide Ex.P-15 have intimated that the amount under FDRs have been closed on 09-10-85 and adjusted to Current Account No. 97/85 and more particularly vide their reply letter at Ex.P-17 the Respondents have informed that the two FDRs have been closed & adjusted to the Loan Account for which the FDRs were taken as security. They have also informed the complainant to produce any documentary proof to their Raichur Branch (Respondent No-1) in case he has closed his loan account by cash payments for verifying their records and redress his grievances and that delay in furnishing the details was due to the fact that the transactions relating to the year 1985 had to be searched and verified. 13. Admittedly the Respondents have not produced the two original FDRs showing that the amount under FDRs have been adjusted to the loan account of the complainant. There is no dispute that the complainant had taken a loan, but according to the complainant he has closed his loan account by adjusting amount of other FDRs and by payment of cash and not by adjustment of the two FDRs in this case. If according to the Respondents the amount under two FDRs have been adjusted to the loan account, then why they have not produced two FDRs showing endorsement in that regard on the two FDRs assumes importance. As stated supra the complainant has produced the two original FDRs which do not show any endorsement with seal and signature of the Respondents Bank for having adjusted the proceed of the two FDRs to his loan account. Of course the Respondents have produced Xerox copy of the Ledger Extract of the FDRs at Ex.R- 1 & Ex.R-2 and original of which produced at Ex.R-3. But how the two original FDRs have been returned to the complainant as contended by the complainant ?. OR how the complainant came in possession of the said two original FDRs is the main question in this case and no explanation is coming forth on behalf of Respondents in answer to the said question. Further the complainant has produced a Registered Post Cover at Ex.P-18 showing postage of this cover to his residential address with the seal of the Respondents Office at Bellary with affixture of postal stamps & postal seal thereon and affixture of Registered Receipts on the said cover. The Respondents have not stated either in the written statement or in the evidence contraverting the postage of Registered cover to the complainant or any evidence that any enquiry having been initiated as to how the two original FDRs have come in possession of the complainant. At the cost of repetition as stated supra the original two FDRs at Ex.P-1 & Ex.P-2 do not show/bear any endorsement of the Respondent Bank to the effect that the proceed of these FDRs having been adjusted to the loan account of complainant and thereby closing the FDRs. Even they do not bear any seal & signature of the Authority of the Respondent-Bank. Generally when the FDRs of any Bank are adjusted to the loan account, then there shall be an endorsement with seal & signature of the Bank Authority in that regard and on closer/adjustment of the amount to the loan account then such FDRs would be the part and parcel of the Bank record. OR even assuming that they (two FDRs) were returned to the complainant but strangely enough we do not find such an endorsement in that regard with seal & signature of the Respondent Bank on the two FDRs. If according to the Respondents the proceed of the FDRs have been adjusted to the loan account then in the absence of any endorsement with seal & signature of the Bank Authority on the two FDRs and the fact that the two FDRs are in possession of the complainant, then naturally it leads to a presumption that the two FDRs have not been either closed or its amount is adjusted to the loan account. 14. It is significant to note here that at the time of hearing on admission of this complaint on 21-06-06 the LC for the complainant had filed a memo for adding additional relief (prayer) as ‘a’ by amending the prayer Col. (a) as ‘a(1)’. After perusal and hearing, the amendment sought for was allowed accordingly. By the prayer column ‘a’ the complainant has sought for direction to the Respondents to produce his loan Accounts extract and all related documents before the Forum and also to furnish copy of the same to the complainant. But Respondents have not produced the extract of loan Account of the complainant so far . This loan account would have thrown much light as to the closer of loan account by the complainant. As rightly pointed out by the LC for the complainant the Respondent Bank shall have to maintain the loan Account of the complainant for the loan obtained by the complainant. Obtaining of loan by complainant is not in dispute. When the Respondents have to maintain loan account in the usual course of its banking business, then the non production of any scrap of paper of loan account as called for by complainant, leads to an adverse inference against the Respondents Bank as rightly submitted by the LC for the complainant. 15. Hence for the above said reasons, the contention of the Respondents that the amount under two FDRs have been adjusted to the loan account of the complainant & thereby the FDRs are closed does not stand to reason and consequently the FDRs Ledger Register produced by the Respondents at Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-3 do not come to the rescue of Respondents. The correspondence/letters as discussed supra go to show that the complainant has went on requesting for renewal of the FDRs by producing the FDRs and the Respondents went on replying that the amount under FDRs have been adjusted to his loan account. At the cost of repetition when the two FDRs do not whisper either closer or adjustment of the amount to the loan account by any endorsement seal & signature of Respondent Bank and when the two FDRs are possession of the complainant it strengthens the contention of the complainant that the complainant has closed his loan account by adjusting the other FDRs & by cash payments and thereby the two FDRs taken as security have been returned to the complainant. The fact that the Respondents went on repeating that the amount under FDRs have been adjusted to the loan account without explaining as to how the two FDRs have been returned or come in possession of the complainant and this attitude of the Respondent it shows amounts to deficiency in service in not renewing his two FDRs or closing the FDRs by making payment of the proceed. Hence we hold that the complainant has proved deficiency in service by the Respondents 1 to 3 as alleged. So Point No-1 is answered in the affirmative. POINT NO:-2 16. As stated above by prayer column ‘a’ the complainant has sought for direction to the Respondents to produce his loan accounts extract and all related documents before the Forum and also to furnish copy of the same to the complainant. Prayer Col. ‘a-1’ is for directing the Respondents to first renew the two FDRs altogether with upto date accrued interest as mentioned in the FDRs. By prayer column ‘b’ and ‘c’ the complainant has sought for direction to the Respondents to pay the value of the renewed FDRs and to pay compensation equal to the renewed value of the FDRs on account of deficiency of service by the Respondents. In view of our discussion and finding on Point No-1 and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we pass the following order: ORDER The complaint of the complainant is allowed in part. The Respondents Bank is directed to renew the two FDRs each for Rs. 20,000/- & Rs. 30,000/- together with upto date fixed interest as shown in the FDRs. The Respondents are further directed to pay the value of renewed FDRs to the complainant along with global compensation of Rs. 20,000/- including cost of litigation. Office to furnish certified copy of this order to both the parties forth-with free of cost. (Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 26-03-09) Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- Smt.Pratibha Rani Hiremath, Sri. Gururaj Sri. N.H. Savalagi, Member. Member. President, Dist.Forum-Raichur. Dist-Forum-Raichur Dist-Forum-Raichur.
    JUDGEMENT By Sri. N.H. Savalagi, President. This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of Consumer Protection Act by the complainant Gyanachand Choudhari against the two O.P. (1) Syndicate Bank Main Branch Raichur and (2) The General Manager Syndicate Bank Corporate Office, Bangalore for deficiency in service. Originally this complaint was dismissed by this Forum In the Appeal No. 22/08 the order of this Forum was set-aside and the matter remitted back to this Forum for fresh disposal after due notice to both the parties. After the remand of the case, on 25-09-08 notice of remand was issued be both the parties. In pursuance of the same, both the parties appeared through counsel on 04-11-08. 2. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:- The complainant used to invest money in Fixed deposits with Respondent NO-1 Bank in his name or in the names of his family members and had been regularly dealing with all his bank transactions with Respondent. He had invested Rs. 30,000/- in his name and Rs. 20,000/- in the name of his mother Smt. Soshar Bai W/o. Late Ratanlal as detailed below: Sl.No. SSD.No. FDR.No. Name Amount 1. 681 129597 Smt. Soshar Bai Rs. 20,000=00 2. 682 129598 Gyanchand Choudhary Rs. 30,000=00 The said FDRs were to mature in 1985. In the meantime the complainant and his mother were in need of money to meet out their legal necessities as such they obtained loan on the above said FDs along with their other FDs Receipts by surrendering the original FD Receipts with the Respondent No-1 Bank. The complainant and his mother cleared the said loans, out of the proceeds of the said other FDs receipts and money from their pocket. Accordingly Respondent NO-1 has returned the above said two original FD Receipts to the complainant after their loan account was fully cleared. Thereafter the complainant took up construction of his house and in the said process the FDRs were mis-placed and thus forget it. In the meantime the complainant had to virtually shut-down his business due to the fire incident in the State Warehouse Corporation Ltd., Raichur, wherein he had stored his goods and he had shifted to Rajasthan to eake his livelihood. After coming back to Raichur and during the course of white washing the house the complainant traced the above said original FDRs he requested the Respondent NO-1 Bank to renew the said FDRs. But the Respondent NO-1 went on dodging the matter on one or the other pre-text and in the mean time his mother Sashar Bai expired. He was deeply shocked at the irresponsible attitude of the Respondent NO-1 Bank and finally he wrote a letter on 22-09-03 and also made requests with Zonal Office, Regional Office, Head office etc. to re-new the said FDRs immediately. But Respondent NO-1 have only asked the complainant to wait for sometime till they get the permission from their head office and corporate office from Bangalore. On 14-02-2004 he was informed over phone to hand over the original to the Respondent NO-1. Accordingly the complainant sent the original FDRs along with his letter dt. 14-02-04 under POD, as he was to go to Puttaparthi for his health checkup in the night itself. The Respondent No-1 has neither renewed the said FDRs nor has paid its value on the contrary has illegally retained the same with it. All the repeated demands and reminders made to Respondents went in vain. The Respondent NO-2 has informed that Respondent No-1 has been informed to set right his grievance and he has been anxiously waiting for the word from Respondent but in vain. The failure of the Respondents to renew the said FDRs has amounted to deficiency in service which is at writ large. They are bound to follow the timely instructions of its customers and they cannot keep the instructions in isolation for such a long time. Hence for all these reasons the complainant has sought for direction to Respondent to produce the loan accounts, extracts and all related documents and to renew the two FDRs together with upto date accrued interest and to pay the value of the renewed FDs and further direction to pay compensation of sum equal to the renewed value of FDRs on account of their deficiency in service. 3. The Respondent No-1 has filed his written version which has been adopted by Respondent No-2. In the written version it is contended that the complaint is not maintainable and it is time barred. Further it is contended that on the two FDs the complainant and his mother has availed loan as per Loan Account No.LD 98/85 and LD 97/85 and accordingly the said original FD Receipts had been deposited with Respondent NO-1. The proceeds of the FDR No. 129597/681 and FDR No. 129596/682 have been adjusted on 09-10-1985 towards the loan account No.LD 98/85 and No.97/85 respectively. Hence the contention of the complainant that the said loan have been cleared from their pocket are all false and baseless. Further the contention of the complainant that Respondent NO-1 returned the said original FDs receipts to the complainant are all false and baseless. As the proceeds of the FDRs have been adjusted to the loan accounts, there arise no question of returning to him. The complainant has created a false story with an ulterior motive of gaining unlawfully. At no point of time the complainant has produced the said FDRs as the proceeds of the same were adjusted to the loan accounts. It is specifically denied that on 14-02-04 the complainant was informed over phone to hand over the original FDRs and accordingly he sent the original with letter dt. 14-02-04 under POD etc., The Respondent NO-1 has not at all received the original FDRs as contended by the complainant. It is also strange to note that the complainant resides within walk-able distance from the bank and instead of approaching the bank personally he sent the POD etc., which cannot be believed. Hence there is no on the part the Respondent NO-1 Bank and there is no deficiency in service. The complainant is a businessman and his conduct of keeping silence for abut (20) years is suspicious. The complainant is seeking the particulars of loan accounts pertaining to 1985 after lapse of (21) years and as the records are very old they have been destroyed as per rules. Therefore they are unable to produce the same. However the FDS, ledger extracts showing the details of adjustments made to the loan accounts regarding the proceeds of the said deposits are produced. Hence for all these reasons the Respondents have prayed for dismissal of the complaint with heavy cost. 4. During the course of trial in the first instance the complainant has filed his sworn-affidavit by way of examination in chief and on 15-06-07 he again filed his sworn-affidavit as further chief-examination and got marked in all (18) documents at Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-18. In rebuttal the Respondents have filed sworn-affidavit of Senior Manager of Respondent Bank as RW-1 and working Manager of Regional Office as RW-2 and have got marked two documents at Ex.R-1 & Ex.R-2. During the course of argument in the first instance the L.C. for OP filed original FDRs Ledger Register containing entries of Ex.R-1 & Ex.R-2 with consent of both sides, the original FDR Register has been marked as Ex.R-3 and the entries of Ex.R-1 and Ex.R-2 on Page No. 78 & 79 have been marked as Ex.R-3(a) Ex.R-3(b) and the entries regarding other FDRs of the complainant and his mother on Page No. 51 of Ex.R-3 has been marked as Ex.R-3(c). 5. As stated supra after the remand of the case, in pursuance of the notice, both the parties appeared through their respective counsel on 01-12-08. The LC for complainant has filed additional affidavit-evidence of the complainant (after the remand) and produced (3) more documents namely: (1) Original Pass Book pertaining to saving Account No. 1202, (2) Original Pass Book pertaining to Saving Account No. 4480 and (3) Original Pass Book pertaining to saving Account No. 13761 and these documents have been got marked as Ex.P-19 to Ex.P-21. The Respondents have not adduced any additional evidence after the remand of the case. 6. As seen above, the Hon’ble State Commission in the Appeal Order on Page No-2 in the last Para it is observed as under:- “No doubt there is a lapse on the part of the complainant in not moving the OP bank for renewal of the FD. But at the same time since there is no refusal to pay the amount till the demand made by the complainant, the claim cannot be thrown out on the ground of delay as it is a recurring cause of action”. Further, on Page No-3 in the last Para it is observed as under:- “If the amount payable under the said two FD has been adjusted to discharge the loan there is no reason for the OP to refuse to renew the FD Receipt in-respect of FDRs bearing No. 681 & 682 or to pay matured amount. In this regard there is no proper consideration by the District Forum. Therefore the matter requires reconsideration”. “Hence the matter is remitted to the District Forum to dispose of the matter afresh after due notice to both parties.” Therefore the Hon’ble State Commission has observed that there is no bar of limitation as it is a recurring cause of action and so the point of limitation needs no consideration. In this background and in the light of the dispute between the parties the following points arise for our consideration and determination: 1. Whether the complainant proves deficiency in service by the Respondents, as alleged.? 2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs as sought for.? 7. Our finding on the above points are as under:- 1. In the affirmative. 2. As per final order for the following. REASONS POINT NO.1 :- 8. It is the case of the complainant that he being a regular customer of Respondent No-1 Bank had invested Rs. 20,000/- in the name of his mother Smt. Soshar Bai and Rs. 30,000/- in his name under two FDRs bearing No. 125997 and 125998. The two FDRs were to mature in 1985. It is also his case that since he and his mother in need of money to meet their legal necessity, so they had obtained loan on the above said two FDRs along with their other FDRs by surrendering the original FDRs with Respondent No-1 Bank and subsequently they cleared the said loan out of the proceeds of their other FDRs and money from their pocket and accordingly after the loan account was fully cleared. Respondent No-1 Bank has returned the two original FDRs in this case. 9. The complainant has produced two FDRs at Ex.P-1 & Ex.P-2 and correspondence made between him and Respondents at Ex.P-3 to Ex.P-18 and after the remand of the case the complainant has produced the original Pass Book pertaining to his Current Account No. 1202 at Ex.P-19 and two original Pass book pertaining to Savings Account No. 4480 at Ex.P-20 & Ex.P-20(1) and original Pass book pertaining to Saving Account No. 13761 at Ex.P-21. The Respondents Bank have produced Attested Photo copy of FDRs Ledger extract bearing Folio No. 78 & 79 at Ex.R-1 & Ex.R-2 and also produced FDR Ledger Register at Ex.R-3 with relevant Folio Nos. 78 & 79 at Ex.R-3(a) & Ex.R-3(b). But the Respondents have not produced any document after the remand of the case. 10. It is specific case that the complainant as averred in Para-6 & 7 that after they cleared the loan on the two FDRs out of the proceed of their other FDRs and money from their pocket the Respondent No-1 has returned the two original FDRs in this case. It is further case of the complainant that after he took up construction of his house and in that process he mis-placed the FDRs and in the meantime he had to virtually shut-down his business due to the fire incident in the State Warehouse Corporation Ltd., Raichur, wherein he had stored his goods and so he had shifted to Rajasthan to eake his livelihood. After coming back to Raichur and during the course of white washing the house he traced the above said original FDRs and he requested the Respondent NO-1 Bank to renew the said FDRs. But the Respondent NO-1 went on dodging the matter on one or the other pre-text and in the mean time his mother Smt. Soshar Bai expired. It is also the case of the complainant that he was deeply shocked at the irresponsible attitude of the Respondent NO-1 Bank for renewing his FDRs so he finally wrote a letter dt. 22-09-03 with a request to the Zonal Office, Regional Office, Head office etc. to re-new the two FDRs but of no avail. Respondent NO-1 has only asked him to wait for sometime till they get the permission from their head office. Further, on 14-02-2004 he was informed over phone to hand over the two original to Respondent NO-1. Accordingly he sent the two original FDRs along with his letter dt. 14-02-04 under POD, as he was to go in that night to Puttaparthi for his health checkup. The two FDRs have been duly acknowledged by Respondent No-1. The Respondent No-1 has neither renewed the said FDRs nor has paid its value but has illegally retained the same with them in-spite of all the repeated demands and reminders. This attitude of the Respondents amounted to deficiency in service which is at writ large. 11. The complainant has produced two original FDRs at Ex.P-1 & Ex.P-2 and his letters dt. 22-09-03 at Ex.P-3 to the Respondent No-1 with copy to Assistant General Manager, Regional Office Bellary & Deputy General Manager, Zonal Office at Bangalore along with postal acknowledgements. He has also produced his another letter dt. 02-11-03 at Ex.P-6(1) addressed to Respondent No-1 Bank for renewal of the two FDRs with postal acknowledgement. He has also produced his another letter dr. 12-12-03 at Ex.P-7 addressed to Respondent No-1 by Courier Service with copies to Assistant General Manager, Bellary & Deputy General Manager, Bangalore requesting for renewal of two FDRs with Courier Delivery Service Note at Ex.P-8 to Ex.P-10. He has also produced his another letter dt. 14-02-04 at Ex.P-11 addressed to Respondent No-1 with copy to Assistant General Manager, Bellary & Deputy General Manager, Bangalore with Courier Consignment Note and Delivery Note at Ex.P-12(1) and Ex.P-12(2). Ex.P-13 is the letter dt. 25-02-04 issued by Respondent Regional Office at Bellary to the complainant stating that they have enquired the matter with their Raichur Main Branch and it was informed that the amount was adjusted to loan account. Ex.P-14 is the reminder letter of the complainant dt. 03-06-04 addressed to Assistant General Manager, Bangalore with request for renewal of the two Fdrs. Ex.P-14(1) to Ex.P-14(4) are the Courier Consignment Notes. Ex.P-15 is the letter of the Respondent Regional Office Bellary dt. 17-06-04 addressed to the complainant stating that the deposits have been closed on 09-10-85 and adjusted to LD A/c. No. 97/85 and for any clarification approach the Branch Manager Raichur (Respondent No-1). Ex.P-16 is the letter of the complainant dt. 21-06-04 addressed to the General Manager, Bangalore requesting for renewal of his two FDRs and despite of his several visits Raichur Branch Respondent No-1 is not in a position to furnish Statement of his Loan Account. Ex.P-17 is the Reply Letter of Respondent Corporate Office at Bangalore dt. 07-01-04 informing the complainant that his FDRs for Rs. 20,000/- & Rs. 30,000/- have been closed and adjusted to the loans for which the FDRs were taken as security and he was asked to produce the same at Respondent No-1 Branch, Raichur in case he has got any documentary proof of having closed his loan account by cash payments, for verifying their records and redress his grievances and further advised the Raichur Branch (Respondent No-1) to verify the records once again and to set right the things & redress his grievances in full. Ex.P-18 is the Registered Cover with affixed postal stamps & postal seal and affixture of Registered Receipts. 12. As seen from the correspondence made between the complainant and Respondent it shows that the complainant all the while since from 2003 onwards went on requesting for renewal of the FDRs by producing the same and the Respondent in their reply letters vide Ex.P-15 have intimated that the amount under FDRs have been closed on 09-10-85 and adjusted to Current Account No. 97/85 and more particularly vide their reply letter at Ex.P-17 the Respondents have informed that the two FDRs have been closed & adjusted to the Loan Account for which the FDRs were taken as security. They have also informed the complainant to produce any documentary proof to their Raichur Branch (Respondent No-1) in case he has closed his loan account by cash payments for verifying their records and redress his grievances and that delay in furnishing the details was due to the fact that the transactions relating to the year 1985 had to be searched and verified. 13. Admittedly the Respondents have not produced the two original FDRs showing that the amount under FDRs have been adjusted to the loan account of the complainant. There is no dispute that the complainant had taken a loan, but according to the complainant he has closed his loan account by adjusting amount of other FDRs and by payment of cash and not by adjustment of the two FDRs in this case. If according to the Respondents the amount under two FDRs have been adjusted to the loan account, then why they have not produced two FDRs showing endorsement in that regard on the two FDRs assumes importance. As stated supra the complainant has produced the two original FDRs which do not show any endorsement with seal and signature of the Respondents Bank for having adjusted the proceed of the two FDRs to his loan account. Of course the Respondents have produced Xerox copy of the Ledger Extract of the FDRs at Ex.R- 1 & Ex.R-2 and original of which produced at Ex.R-3. But how the two original FDRs have been returned to the complainant as contended by the complainant ?. OR how the complainant came in possession of the said two original FDRs is the main question in this case and no explanation is coming forth on behalf of Respondents in answer to the said question. Further the complainant has produced a Registered Post Cover at Ex.P-18 showing postage of this cover to his residential address with the seal of the Respondents Office at Bellary with affixture of postal stamps & postal seal thereon and affixture of Registered Receipts on the said cover. The Respondents have not stated either in the written statement or in the evidence contraverting the postage of Registered cover to the complainant or any evidence that any enquiry having been initiated as to how the two original FDRs have come in possession of the complainant. At the cost of repetition as stated supra the original two FDRs at Ex.P-1 & Ex.P-2 do not show/bear any endorsement of the Respondent Bank to the effect that the proceed of these FDRs having been adjusted to the loan account of complainant and thereby closing the FDRs. Even they do not bear any seal & signature of the Authority of the Respondent-Bank. Generally when the FDRs of any Bank are adjusted to the loan account, then there shall be an endorsement with seal & signature of the Bank Authority in that regard and on closer/adjustment of the amount to the loan account then such FDRs would be the part and parcel of the Bank record. OR even assuming that they (two FDRs) were returned to the complainant but strangely enough we do not find such an endorsement in that regard with seal & signature of the Respondent Bank on the two FDRs. If according to the Respondents the proceed of the FDRs have been adjusted to the loan account then in the absence of any endorsement with seal & signature of the Bank Authority on the two FDRs and the fact that the two FDRs are in possession of the complainant, then naturally it leads to a presumption that the two FDRs have not been either closed or its amount is adjusted to the loan account. 14. It is significant to note here that at the time of hearing on admission of this complaint on 21-06-06 the LC for the complainant had filed a memo for adding additional relief (prayer) as ‘a’ by amending the prayer Col. (a) as ‘a(1)’. After perusal and hearing, the amendment sought for was allowed accordingly. By the prayer column ‘a’ the complainant has sought for direction to the Respondents to produce his loan Accounts extract and all related documents before the Forum and also to furnish copy of the same to the complainant. But Respondents have not produced the extract of loan Account of the complainant so far . This loan account would have thrown much light as to the closer of loan account by the complainant. As rightly pointed out by the LC for the complainant the Respondent Bank shall have to maintain the loan Account of the complainant for the loan obtained by the complainant. Obtaining of loan by complainant is not in dispute. When the Respondents have to maintain loan account in the usual course of its banking business, then the non production of any scrap of paper of loan account as called for by complainant, leads to an adverse inference against the Respondents Bank as rightly submitted by the LC for the complainant. 15. Hence for the above said reasons, the contention of the Respondents that the amount under two FDRs have been adjusted to the loan account of the complainant & thereby the FDRs are closed does not stand to reason and consequently the FDRs Ledger Register produced by the Respondents at Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-3 do not come to the rescue of Respondents. The correspondence/letters as discussed supra go to show that the complainant has went on requesting for renewal of the FDRs by producing the FDRs and the Respondents went on replying that the amount under FDRs have been adjusted to his loan account. At the cost of repetition when the two FDRs do not whisper either closer or adjustment of the amount to the loan account by any endorsement seal & signature of Respondent Bank and when the two FDRs are possession of the complainant it strengthens the contention of the complainant that the complainant has closed his loan account by adjusting the other FDRs & by cash payments and thereby the two FDRs taken as security have been returned to the complainant. The fact that the Respondents went on repeating that the amount under FDRs have been adjusted to the loan account without explaining as to how the two FDRs have been returned or come in possession of the complainant and this attitude of the Respondent it shows amounts to deficiency in service in not renewing his two FDRs or closing the FDRs by making payment of the proceed. Hence we hold that the complainant has proved deficiency in service by the Respondents 1 to 3 as alleged. So Point No-1 is answered in the affirmative. POINT NO:-2 16. As stated above by prayer column ‘a’ the complainant has sought for direction to the Respondents to produce his loan accounts extract and all related documents before the Forum and also to furnish copy of the same to the complainant. Prayer Col. ‘a-1’ is for directing the Respondents to first renew the two FDRs altogether with upto date accrued interest as mentioned in the FDRs. By prayer column ‘b’ and ‘c’ the complainant has sought for direction to the Respondents to pay the value of the renewed FDRs and to pay compensation equal to the renewed value of the FDRs on account of deficiency of service by the Respondents. In view of our discussion and finding on Point No-1 and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we pass the following order: ORDER The complaint of the complainant is allowed in part. The Respondents Bank is directed to renew the two FDRs each for Rs. 20,000/- & Rs. 30,000/- together with upto date fixed interest as shown in the FDRs. The Respondents are further directed to pay the value of renewed FDRs to the complainant along with global compensation of Rs. 20,000/- including cost of litigation. Office to furnish certified copy of this order to both the parties forth-with free of cost. (Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 26-03-09) Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- Smt.Pratibha Rani Hiremath, Sri. Gururaj Sri. N.H. Savalagi, Member. Member. President, Dist.Forum-Raichur. Dist-Forum-Raichur Dist-Forum-Raichur.


  • adminadmin Administrator
    edited September 2009
    BEFORE THE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT MANGALORE
    Dated this the 13TH March 2009
    COMPLAINT NO.214/2008
    (Admitted on 4.8.2008)
    PRESENT: 1. Smt. Asha Shetty, B.A. L.L.B., P resident
    2.[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]Smt. Sulochana V. Rao, Member
    3.[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]Sri. K. Ramachandra, Member
    BETWEEN:
    Mr.Lancy Menezes,
    S/o Late Marcel Menezes,
    Aged of 53 years, Adult,
    Roman Catholic,
    R/at Lady Hill,
    Mangalore. ….COMPLAINANT

    (Advocate for Complainant: Sri.Deenath Shetty)

    VERSUS


    Branch Manager,
    Syndicate Bank,
    Kadri,
    Mangalore. …. OPPOSITE PARTY

    (Advocate for Opposite Party: Sri.M.S.Krishna Prasad.)
    ORDER DELIVERED BY SMT. ASHA SHETTY, PRESIDENT;

    1. The facts of the complaint in brief are as follows:
    This complaint is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act alleging deficiency in service against the Opposite Party claiming certain reliefs.
    The Complainant submits that, he has sent a communication dated 3.7.2007 requesting the Opposite Party to issue a uptodate statement of account pertinent to his S.B. Account was opened in the year 1996. In response to the above communication the Opposite Party issued a reply dated 28.9.2006 i.e. after lapse of more than two months sent a communication stating that the relevant records could not be traced and asked the Complainant to provide counter foils or challan or Pass Book to help the Opposite Party. The Complainant issued a legal notice to the Opposite Party on 31.10.2006 by stating that he has no particulars of bank transactions and once again called upon the Opposite Party to furnish him the particulars. In response to the said legal notice the Opposite Party got issued a reply but not sent any particulars as sought by the Complainant. And thereafter the Complainant filed a complaint before this Forum in complaint No.479/2006, in the said complaint the Opposite Party taken a defence that as per rules and guidelines prescribed by the RBI the documents more than 8 years, the records sought by the Complainant was being destroyed inconsonance with RBI Regulations. It is submitted that, the defence taken by the Opposite Party in complaint No.479/06 is false and baseless there is no such guidelines etc. etc. and further submitted that the Opposite Party is succeeded in persuading this Forum to arrive erroneous conclusion to dismiss the complaint of the Complainant in 479/2006 and submitted that as against the order passed in Complaint in 479/06 the Complainant preferred appeal before the Hon’ble State Commission bearing Appeal No.2536/2007 the same came to be dismissed on the ground of delay on 6.2.2008. And thereafter Complainant obtained a certificate from the Vijaya Bank on 5.5.2008 wherein it came to know that the Opposite Party won the case by producing bogus records before this Forum and hence it is contended that the service rendered by the Opposite Party is a deficiency and there is a cause of action to file a complaint and there is no limitation and contended that there is a deficiency on the part of the Opposite Party on the fresh ground as stated supra and Complainant filed the above complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (herein after referred to as ‘the Act’) seeking direction from this Hon'ble Forum to the Opposite Party to furnish the particulars pertaining to Account No.20802, Copy of the Application Form to open the account, Particulars of Identifier, copy of the Ledger Extract upto date from the date of account, copy of the pay slips if any, copy of the withdrawal slips if any, copy of the standing instructions if any, Cheque leafs if any, cleared/bounced/returned etc., and to grant a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards compensation and cost of the proceedings.

    2. Version notice served to the Opposite Party by RPAD. Opposite Party appeared through their counsel and filed version contended that the complaint is barred by principles of res-judicata.
    And it is further submitted that the Complainant had filed a similar complaint earlier on the same subject matter and after full enquiry the said complaint in Complaint No.479/2006 was dismissed as per order dated 15.11.2007 by this Forum. As against the said order the Complainant filed an appeal before the State Commission in Appeal No.2536/2007. In view of the decision given by this Hon’ble District Forum and also by the State Commission, the second complaint on the same subject matter is not legally maintainable.
    It is submitted that, the Complainant has asked for certain documents and particulars of his account related to very old period, the Bank was not in a position to get the records as the same had been destroyed as per Banking Rules. On account of non-availability of the records could not be given. This was informed to the Complainant accordingly. During the enquiry on the earlier complaint in Complaint No.479/2006 all these facts were narrated on considering the above complaint the Hon’ble Forum dismissed the complaint of the Complainant and once again the above Complainant approached this Forum on the very same subject matter and there is no consumer dispute and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

    3. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this case are as under:
    (i)[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]Whether the complaint is barred by principles of res-judicata?
    (ii)[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]Whether the Complainant proves that the Opposite Party has committed deficiency in service?
    (iii)[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]If so, whether the Complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed?
    (iv)[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]What order?

    4. In support of the complaint, Mr.Lancy Menezes (CW1) filed affidavit reiterating what has been stated in the complaint and answered the interrogatories served on him. Ex.C1 to C17 were marked for the Complainant as listed in the annexure. Sri N.Varadaraya Pai, Senior Manager of Opposite Party (RW-1) filed counter affidavit and answered the interrogatories served on him. Both the parties have submitted written notes of arguments.
    We have heard the arguments and perused the pleadings, documents and evidence placed on record by the respective parties and answer the points are as follows:
    REASONS
    5. POINTS NO.(i) to (iv):
    In the instant case, on going through the entire records produced by the respective parties as well as the materials/evidence on record placed before the Fora it is proved beyond doubt that, the Complainant in the above case had filed a complaint earlier on the same subject matter in Complaint No.479/2006 and in the said complaint all the facts stated in the complaint were narrated and the parties had adduced evidence and after considering all the points on merits this Forum dismissed the complaint on 15.11.2007. And thereafter as against the said order the Complainant preferred an appeal before the state commission in appeal No.2536/2007. The Hon’ble State Commission after considering the appeal on merits dismissed the application filed for condonation of delay and appeal on merits.
    From the above observation made by the State Commission as stated supra is very clear that the Hon’ble State commission not only dismissed the appeal on condonation of delay but also by considering the merits. Under the above circumstances, if at all the Complainant aggrieved by the aforesaid order passed by the State Commission or the District Fora, the option left open to the Complainant to approach the higher authorities i.e., a National Commission. But in the instant case, the Complainant instead of approaching high authorities filed the above complaint with unwarranted words by stating that the D.K.D.F came to erroneous conclusion etc. etc. is not justifiable in the eye of law.
    In the present case, the subject matter involved in this case was finally decided on merits on 15.11.2007. The Complainant is a debarred from re-agitating the matter once again on the very same subject matter by filing a fresh complaint is hit by resjudicata. And hence the complaint is not maintainable. Discussion of rest of the issues does not arise.
    The Section 26 of the Consumer Protection Act introduced by the legislation is in order to curtail the frivolous and vexatious complaints. In the present case, the Complainant inspite of knowing the dismissal of the earlier complaint filed frivolous complaint before the Forum by using unwarranted words. If at all the Complainant aggrieved by the order passed by this Forum or the State Commission as the case may be, the Complainant can very well approach the National Commission instead of filing frivolous or vexatious complaint before the Forum. One should not play with the law, but it should be interpreted in write time in write course. By considering the above facts and circumstances we are of the opinion that, no litigants should play with the law. Hence we hereby dismiss the complaint with cost of Rs.2,000/-. The cost shall be payable to the Opposite Party. The payment shall be made with in 30 days from the date of this order.

    6. In the result, we pass the following:
    ORDER

    The Complaint is dismissed with cost of Rs.2,000/-. The cost shall be payable to the Opposite Party. The payment shall be made with in 30 days from the date of this order.
    Copy of this order as per statutory requirements be forward to the parties free of costs and file shall be consigned to record room.

    (Dictated to the Stenographer, the transcript revised, signed and pronounced by us in the open court on this the 13th day of March 2009.)





    PRESIDENT
    (SMT. ASHA SHETTY)



    MEMBER MEMBER
    (SMT. SULOCHANA V. RAO) (SRI. K.RAMACHNADRA)




    APPENDIX

    WITNESSESS EXAMINED FOR THE COMPLAINANT :
    CW1- Mr.Lancy Menezes
    DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BY THE COMPLAINANT:
    Ex. C1: 3.7.006: Letter communication of the Lancy ]
    Menezes to the Opposite Party.
    Ex. C2: 28.9.2006: Reply of the Branch Manager of
    Syndicate Bank.
    Ex.C3: 31.10.2006: Legal Notice issued by
    Mr.Mani.K.Advocate.
    Ex.C4: 13.11.2006: Reply issued by Advocate
    Mr.M.V.Shankar Bhat.
    Ex C5: 3.1.1997: Certified copy of the Release Deed.
    Ex.C6: 8.1.2003: Certificate of Dr.Shubhakar Bhandary.
    Ex.C7:27.8.2004: Communication of the Chief Manager
    Syndicate Bank.
    Ex.C8: 27.9.2004:Format of certificate to be submitted to
    R.O. Mangalore Stationery Section statedly issued
    by the Chief Manager.
    Ex.C9:Record submitted vis-à-vis maintenance
    preservation and destruction of old records.
    Ex.C10: List of records as are statedly not due for
    elimination (16 in Nos.).
    Ex.C11: 5.5.2008: Certificate issued by Opposite Party to
    Complainant.
    Ex.C12: Complaint bearing No.479/2006 preferred
    against the Syndicate Bank before the Hon’ble
    D.K.Dist. Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum in
    Mangalore.
    Ex.C13: 2.1.2007: Written version preferred by the Bank
    in Complaint No.479/2006.
    Ex.C14. 15.11.2007: Order passed by the Hon’ble
    D.K.D.C.F. Mangalore dismissing the Complaint
    the bearing No.479/2006.
    Ex.C15: 6.2.2008: Orders passed by the Hon’ble Karntaka
    State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
    in Bangalore in Appeal No.2536/2007 dismiss the
    said appeal preferred by Complainant.
    Ex.C16: 18.6.2008: Legal Notice.
    Ex.C17: Postal Acknowledgement.


    WITNESSESS EXAMINED FOR THE OPPOSITE PARTY:
    RW-1: Sri N.Varadaraya Pai, Senior Manager of Opposite Party.

    DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BY THE OPPOSITE PARTY:
    Complaint No.479./06 on the file of D.K.D.F. called for.



    Dated:13.3.2009 PRESIDENT
  • adminadmin Administrator
    edited September 2009
    CC.No:39/2009
    BETWEEN:
    Mandadi Venkateswarlu,
    S/o. Koteswara Rao, aged about 45 years,
    Hindu, R/o. Santhanuthalapadu village
    And Mandal, Prakasam District. ... Complainant.
    Vs.
    The Chief Manager,
    Syndicate Bank,
    Ongole Branch,
    Near Nellore Busstand,
    Ongole. …Opposite party.


    COUNSEL FOR COMPLAINANT: SRI C. VENKATA RAO,
    ADVOCATE, ONGOLE.

    COUNSEL FOR OPPOSITE PARTY: EX-PARTE.

    This complaint is coming on 15.04.2009 for final hearing before us and having stood over this day for consideration this Forum delivered the following:
    ORDER:

    1. This is a complaint filed by the complainant under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 directing the opposite party to return the gold jewels pledged under L.F. No. PSA 3758/06 to the complainant.

    2. The case of the complainant is that he availed loan of Rs.60,000/- from the opposite party for agricultural purposes under LF No. PSA 3758/06 dated 01.09.2006 pledging the gold Jewellery. The Government of India waived the agricultural loan under reliefs scheme 2008. Thereafter, the complainant approached the opposite party number of times for return of the gold Jewellery and the opposite party postponing the same on some pretext or the other. Hence, the complaint.

    3. The opposite party did not choose to contest the matter and remained ex-parte.

    4. The complainant also approached the Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Ongole for return of the gold Jewellery. The opposite party having informed the Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Ongole through its letter dated 14.11.2008 marked as Ex.A1 “that after careful examination of the case, our Regional Office, Nellore has instructed us to consider the case favourably. Accordingly we have included the name of Sri Mandadi Venkateswarlu for full waiver of the jewel loan amount under RBI Agriculture debt waiver and Debt Relief Scheme 2008”. But, fail to return the gold Jewellery to the complainant. It amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and opposite party is liable to return the gold Jewellery after waiving the loan.

    5. In the result, petition is allowed directing the opposite party to return the gold Jewellery under LF No. PSA 3758/06 to the complainant and also to pay Rs.1,000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs.1,000/- towards costs of litigation.
  • adminadmin Administrator
    edited September 2009
    M/s. ‘ARVIS AGENCIES’
    Ballal Bagh, Mangalore 575 003.
    Represented by its proprietor
    Mr. Richard Rasqueinha,
    S/o. Domingo Rasqueinha. …….. COMPLAINANT

    (Advocate: Sri.B.J.Furtado)

    VERSUS

    The SYNDICATE BANK,
    a body corporate,
    Constituted under and governed by the
    Provisions of Banking Companies Act 1970
    Having its head office at Manipal and one
    Of Its branch office at Bejai,
    Opposite KSRTC Bus Stand,
    Mangalore-575 004
    And represented by
    its Senior Manager. …..OPPOSITE PARTY

    (Advocate: Sri.M.S.Krishnaprasad)
    ORDER DELIVERED BY SMT. ASHA SHETTY, PRESIDENT;
    1. The facts of the complaint in brief are as follows:
    This complaint is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act alleging deficiency in service against the Opposite Party claiming certain reliefs.
    The Complainant submits that, he was/is running a dealership business by name and style ‘Arvis Agencies’ since several years and he was regular customers of the Opposite Party and he had SOD 125/221 account with the Opposite Party to the tune of Rs.20,00,000/-.
    It is submitted that, as a routine practice on 14.4.2007 the Complainant had been to the Opposite Party bank with cash-in-slip for a sum of Rs.23,390/- as well as cheques for collection. When the Complainant entered the bank it was declared as holiday belatedly, hence on the next working day on 16.4.2007 the Complainant had presented the above mentioned bank credit slip which was already filled with date of 14.4.2007 without changing the same. On 16.4.2007, the amount of Rs.23,390/- was received by the Opposite Party and issued sealed slip dated 16.4.2007 for having deposit of Rs.23,390/- on that day to the account No.SOD125/221. In addition to the above transaction on 16.4.2007 the Complainant had transacted eight times out of which a cash transaction of Rs.52,880/- was also involved. Out of eight transactions on 16.4.2007 six transactions are made for collection cheques issued by the customers and two transactions in cash.
    It is alleged that, the transaction dated 16.4.2007 for Rs.23,390/- was not entered nor said amount is credited to his account. Immediately this fact was brought to the notice of the Opposite Party and the Opposite Party failed to credit the amount of Rs.23,390/- to his account inspite of several requests and notices. It is contended that the service rendered by the Opposite Party amounts to deficiency and filed the above complaint before this Hon'ble Forum under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (herein after referred to as ‘the Act’) seeking direction from this Hon'ble Forum to the Opposite Party to credit the amount of Rs.27,616/- to the account of the Complainant and also grant of entire cost of the this Complaint and grant of such other and further reliefs.

    2. Version notice served to the Opposite Party by RPAD. Opposite Party appeared through their counsel filed version submitted that the allegations made by the Complainant is wrong and incorrect and submitted that 14.4.2007 was belatedly declared as a holiday and in point of fact some transactions had already been done by that time. The Complainant in all probabilities must have obtained the seal of the bank, during the busy business hours, when it was declared as a holiday, and without remitting the cash or without giving the cheques it was taken back by him, this is clear from the Pay-in-slip itself, which contains the clearing seal and the said slip does not contain the particulars of denomination of the currency and further submitted that the amount stated by the Complainant being an odd figure, the particulars of denominations and currency notes should have been there, but it is blank. The seal is also a clearing seal and not cash received seal. It is submitted that, these circumstances reveal that the amount was not remitted on that day. It is further submitted that, the Complainant while coming on 16.4.2007, with the pay-in-slip for Rs.53,880/- included the said sum of Rs.23,390/- and there was no reason for giving two separate slips for remitting the amounts at the same time, to the same amount, on the same day on 16.4.2007. And submitted that, the complaint is false and untenable and contended that there is no deficiency and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

    3. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this case are as under:
    (i)[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]Whether the Complainant proves that the Opposite Party has committed deficiency in service?

    (i)[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]If so, whether the Complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed?






    (ii)[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]What order?

    4. In support of the complaint, Mr.Richard Rasqueinha (CW1) filed affidavit reiterating what has been stated in the complaint and answered the interrogatories served on him. Ex C1 to C7 were marked for the Complainant as listed in the annexure. One Mr.Ashok Kumar Alva (RW1), Senior Branch Manager of the Opposite Party filed counter affidavit and answered the interrogatories served on him. Both parties have produced written notes of arguments.
    We have considered the oral and notes of arguments submitted by the learned counsels and we have also considered the materials that was placed before the Hon'ble Forum and answer the points are as follows:
    Point No.(i): Affirmative
    Point No.(ii) & (iii): As per final order.


    REASONS

    5. Points No. (i) to (iii):
    In the instant case it is undisputed fact that, the Complainant is a business man and holding SOD 125/221 with the Opposite Party.
    Now the point in dispute is that, on 16.4.2007 Complainant had given the cash amount of sum of Rs.23,390/- with the pay-in-slip dated 14.4.2007 to the Opposite Party bank for crediting the same to his account No.SOD 125/221 and that the same has not been credited to his account. According to him on 14.4.2007 he had come with the said amount the Opposite Party bank declared has holiday belatedly. Hence, on the next working day i.e. on 16.4.2007 the Complainant has presented above mentioned bank credit slip was already filled with date of 14.4.2007 without changing the same. On 16.4.2007 the amount of Rs.23,390/- was received by the Opposite Party bank issued the sealed slip dated 16.4.2007 for having deposit of Rs.23,390/- to the account No.SOD125/221. However, it is definite case of the Complainant that, he had transacted in cash of Rs.23,390/- But the same was not credited to his account and further submitted that on 16.4.2007 Complainant had transacted eight times out of which a cash transaction of Rs.52,880/- was also involved and out of eight transaction six transactions were made for collection of cheques issued by the customers and two transactions in cash.
    On the contrary, the Opposite Party Syndicate Bank contended that, 14.4.2007 was a declared as a holiday late on the day after the bank had already commenced the business and the bank had to close the counter immediately on holiday being declared. Once again the Complainant had come on 16.4.2007 and paid Rs.52,880/- this was accounted and in all probabilities it is alleged that during the busy hours on 14.4.2007 the Complainant or his men must have obtained the seal of the bank without remitting the cash, as these persons are regular customers when they give a bunch of slips for giving the cheques and cash, immediately seals are put and given and paying slip relied by the Complainant contains cash received seal the particulars of the denominations of the currency are not made and submitted that the Complainant might have obtained the seal without remitting the cash.
    From the above defence taken by the Opposite Party clearly reveals that the Opposite Party bank taken after the same defence in imaginary way without being any material/cogent evidence in order to substantiate their defence.
    On the other hand, in order to substantiate the case of the Complainant, he himself examined as a CW-1 and got marked Ex.C1 to C7. Ex. C1 includes pay-in-slip for Rs.23,390/- and in the date column it is mentioned as 14.4.2007, however the actual transaction date is 16.4.2007 and the Opposite Party bank seal is visible therein. The Ex.C4 is Office Copy of the notice, C5 postal acknowledgement having service of notice to the Opposite Party and Ex.C6 reply by the Opposite Party as well as C7 statement pertaining to the Complainant’s SOD account are not in dispute. The Ex.C7 there is no entry for the transactions on 14.4.2007, in addition to the above the interrogatories served by the Opposite Party and also the interrogatories served by the Complainant and the answers given by the respective parties made us very clear that there is no chance of misusing the seal of the bank by the customers herein the Complainant as alleged by the Opposite Party bank. The Opposite Party bank ought to have produced the counter voucher of the bank seal dated 16.4.2007 pertaining to the transaction dated mentioned as 14.4.2007 for Rs.23,390/-. But no such documents were produced in order to substantiate their defence. The defence taken by the Opposite Party is not proved with cogent evidence and we are of the considered opinion that the Opposite Party bank inspite of receiving an amount of Rs.23,390/- paid by the Complainant in cash under a bank deposit slip on 14.4.2007 and the said amount deposited under the pay-in-slip dated 14.4.2007 as stated supra and the bank even though had received the said amount has not credited to the account of the Complainant i.e. SOD 125/221 which amounts to deficiency in service and hence by considering the materials on record, we hereby direct the Opposite Party Bank to credit the amount of Rs.23,390/- along with the interest at 8% per annum from the date of deposit i.e. 16.4.2007 till the date of payment and further Rs.1,000/- awarded as cost of the litigation expenses. Payment shall be made within 30 days from the date of this order.

    6. In the result, we pass the following:

    ORDER

    The complaint is allowed. The Opposite Party Bank is hereby directed to credit the amount of Rs.23,390/- along with the interest at 8% per annum from the date of deposit i.e. 16.4.2007 till the date of payment to the Complainant and further Rs.1,000/- awarded as cost of the litigation expenses. Payment shall be made within 30 days from the date of this order.
  • adv.sumitadv.sumit Senior Member
    edited September 2009
    Mrs. Geetha Nambiar

    W/o. Mr.Nambiar,

    Flat No.4, Royal Roof Apartment,

    Appasamy lay out,

    Red Fields, Coimbatore. --- Complainant

    Vs.

    Syndicate Bank,

    Rep by it’s Branch Manager,

    Redfields Branch,

    Coimbatore. --- Opposite Party


    ORDER

    Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking direction against the opposite party to pay the complainant a sum of Rs.7,074/58 which was debited by ICICI bank towards penal to pay Rs.90,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and suffering sustained by the complainant and to pay towards cost of the proceedings.



    The averments in the complaint are as follows:

    1. The Complainant is a teacher working at Naval School, Coimbatore, and wife of an officer in the cadre of Wing Commander. The complainant is having a savings account bearing Account Number 61452180000025 in the Syndicate Bank, Redfields Branch, Coimbatore. On 11.12.07 a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- was deposited in the opposite party’s bank for a term of 45 days. The Number of the fixed Deposit Receipt is 613604 dated 11.12.07 and the copy of the receipt is also marked as a document Ex.A1.

    2. The complainant approached the opposite party on 24.01.08, handed over the fixed deposit receipt to the bank and requested to credit the proceeds of the deposit in her savings bank account stated supra. Though the fixed deposit matures on 25.01.08, the complainant requested Mr.Sivakumar of the opposite party to cancel the fixed deposit and credit the proceeds in her savings bank account since the officials of the opposite party are on strike on 25.01.08 and subsequent dates namely 26.01.08, 27.01.08 are holidays.

    3. Hence the complainant was to issue a cheque for Rs.94,413/- to ICICI Bank to meet a financial commitment. The opposite party advised the complainant she will not get interest if the closes the fixed deposit before the maturity. The complainant does not bothered about the interest and agreed to forgo interest. Mr. Sivakumar of the opposite party instructed the complainant to endorse the fixed deposit receipt by putting her signature in the receipt and promised on 24.01.08 that the proceedings will be completed so as to give cheque to anyone up to the value of the fixed deposit.

    4. The complainant produced the pass book to the opposite party to update the entry, but the opposite party instead of doing the request, told that it would take sometime and asked her to produce it the next day. The complainant went with the hope of her requests will be fulfilled by the opposite party.

    5. The complainant issued a cheque bearing No. 254604 dated 6.02.08 from the above saving bank account to ICICI Bank for Rs.94,413/- towards payment to them. But it was returned with the memo of insufficient funds. The ICICI Bank deposited a sum of Rs.7,074/58 to the account of the complainant as per the below details:



    Interest charges = Rs.6,019.25

    Service Tax = Rs. 774.03

    Returned cheque payments = Rs. 250.00

    Service Tax = Rs. 30.90


    Total = Rs.7,074.58




    6. The complainant was shocked over the dishonour of the cheque and that too for the insufficiency of funds. Immediately she took up the matter with the opposite party, who admitted the mistake done by their staff and assured to compensate the loss incurred. When she produced the passbook for updating entry, it was revealed that the fixed deposit proceeds were credited to her account only on 11.02.08. The complainant wants to register the matter on record and she sent a letter to the opposite party on 22.02.08 to compensate for the negligence of the opposite party.

    7. Since there was no reply so she wrote another letter on 27.04.08 to Manipal Head Office of the opposite party and a copy to the Regional Office at R.S. Puram, Coimbatore. The opposite party came up with a reply on 28.04.08 stating that the fixed deposit receipt of the complainant was not at all received by them. Therefore the question of passing of the cheque in dispute does not arise at all. It is also stated that on 11.02.08 the deposit amount was credited to the savings account on oral request only, in good faith instantly. Again she wrote a letter to the head office and copy to the branch on 7.05.08.


    In that she stated the past happenings the opposite party’s Regional Office has sent a letter dated 16.05.08 stating that the cheque return charges was reverted as a good will gesture but there was no other concessions except the above. The complainant again issued reminder to the corporate office of the opposite on 10.06.08 and they replied in their letter dated 30.08.08 that the matter is engaging their attention. After that there is no any response from the opposite party. By stating the above averments the complainant approach the Forum praying to pay a sum of Rs.7,074/58 which was debited by the ICICI Bank towards penal interest and a sum of Rs.90,000/- toward compensation for mental agony with cost. Hence this complaint.



    The averments in the counter of opposite party are as follows:



    8. The opposite party accepts that the complainant is having a savings bank account with them. The account No. 6145/218/25 a joint account with her husband and son. The said account was transferred from the Air Force Administrative College Extension counter to the opposite party’s branch and has been serviced by the opposite party since then. The complainant on 24.01.08 at about 5.30p.m at the end of the day, when the branch was about to close, called on the branch and had a discussion with one Mr.Sivakumar, staff of the opposite party, with regard credit of the proceeds of her deposits which has to be matured on 25.01.08.

    9. On 25.01.08 as the bankers were planning to go on strike, and the subsequent days viz 26th and 27th had fallen on holidays, the complainant was asked to approach the bank on the next working day i.e. 28.01.08. She has not delivered the original deposit to the bank at any point of time.

    10. The complainant claimed to have issued a cheque for Rs.94,413/- towards ICICI card bearing No. 254603 and again issued another cheque No. 254604 for the same amount. The said cheques were the cheques of the erstwhile Air Force Administrative College Extension counter(Branch). The cheques were presented for clearance to the Syndicate Bank, Pankaja Mill Road Branch, which was returned for insufficient funds. The cheques return memos were issued by the said branch, and therefore the opposite party is not aware of the happenings which happened in the last week of January and first week of February 2008. The opposite party knows the happenings only on 11.02.08, when the complainant personally visited the branch.

    11. The Branch Manager of the opposite party has requested her to give a written complaint for the same. The opposite party had also requested her to handover the original deposit receipt. But she replied to come back with the complaint and also agreed to hand over the deposit receipt, in the next day. However she has sought for immediate credit of the amount in as much as the cheques were twice returned unpaid.

    12. The Branch instead of seeking for all technical compliances/requirements like delivery of the original receipts, complaint etc, has in good faith at the request of the complainant, given credit her account out of the fixed deposit, which was matured the good further exercised by the opposite party without insisting on technicalities, became an advantage to the complainant and has come forward with the false complaint.

    The opposite party submits that the complainant is also having another account No. 6145 220 1237 jointly with her husband which was also transferred from AFAC branch, Coimbatore. The opposite party also says that AFAC branch which was originally an extension counter functioning from March ’01 was upgraded into a branch in March’07 and shifted to Gandhipuram branch and all the accounts pertaining to AFAC staff were transferred to their branch in April and May’07.

    13. As all the customers were using the cheque books issued by AFAC branch suitably advised through a notice displayed at their bank to obtain new cheque books from their branch to mitigate hardships as the old cheques were destined to go to Pankaja Mill Road Branch as per MICR setup. The complainant and her husband have availed fresh cheque book for the other account from their branch on 24.07.2007 itself. But they continued to use the old cheque book for the account No. 6145/218/25 which led to her cheque going to Pankaja Mill Road Branch. On 11.02.008 as per the advice of the opposite party the complainant received a new cheque book and the new cheque was passed.



    14. The complainant and opposite party have filed Proof Affidavits along with Ex.A1 to A12 was marked on the side of the complainant and Ex.B1 to EX.B3 was marked on the side of the opposite party.



    The point for consideration is

    Whether the opposite party has committed deficiency in service? If so to what relief the complainant is entitled to?

    ISSUE 1

    15. The complainant is having savings bank account with the opposite party’s bank. As per the statement of the opposite party the complainant has a goodwill and valuable customer of their bank. The complainant was having account with the opposite party’s extension counter branch at AFAC Branch. It was upgraded as a branch.

    16. The bank advised the customers to get new cheque books from the Redfield’s Branch. As per Ex.B-1 the complainant is having another joint account with her husband, received new cheque book as per the request of the bank. But the cheque used in this case is an old one bearing No. 254603. If they present this it will automatically go to Pankaja Mill Road Branch only. The same was happened in this case as per Ex.A-3. The complainant has sent another cheque bearing no. 254604 and that also returned but the complainant not disclosed it in his complaint. The next point is the complainant has not proved that she has already submitted the Deposit Receipt on 24.01.08.

    17. The cheque given by the complainant was returned by the Pankaja Mill Road Branch on 7.02.08 as per the document No.Ex A-3. But the complainant did not turned up to the Redfield Branch upto 11.02.08 and she came to the bank only on 11.02.08 and got new cheque book on the very same day and it is proved by the opposite party as the document Ex.B-2.

    18. The complainants account statement Ex.B-3 proves that she is having account only with Redfields Branch. So, the cheque returned by the Pankaja Mill Road Branch will not be considered as the fault done by the Redfield Branch. But as soon as the matter comes to the knowledge of the opposite party they have credited the deposit amount into the savings bank account of the complainant and they have also given credit to the cheque return charges also. The transaction of the Pankaja Mill Road is nothing to do with the Redfield Branch. Finally the opposite party namely the Syndicate Bank, Redfields Branch has not committed any deficiency of service and the petition is dismissed. No costs.
  • adv.sumitadv.sumit Senior Member
    edited October 2009
    1. Sure Janaki Rama Krishna,

    S/o. Venkata Punna Rao,

    2. Sure Vankata Punna Rao,

    S/o. Satyanarayana,

    3. Hari Krishna Traders,

    Rep. by its Proprietor Sure Vankata Punna Rao



    Complainant 1 to 3 are having business at

    Amaravathi Road, Atchampeta Post and Mandal,

    Guntur District. … Complainants



    AND



    Syndicate Bank Main Branch,

    Rep. by its Branch Manager,

    (M.T.Road) Patnam Bazar, Guntur … Opposite party









    O R D E R




    The brief facts of the case are as follows:

    The 1st complainant is the son and 2nd complainant is the father. The 3rd complainant is a proprietary concern being run by 2nd complainant. The 1st complainant is having saving Bank account bearing No.201/58867 with the Syndicate Bank, Main Branch, Guntur (opposite party). The 2nd complainant is having current account bearing No.101/1154 in the name of ‘Hari Krishna Traders’ (3rd complainant) with the same Bank. That on 14-02-05, the 1st complainant along with one Yasin and one Reddy went to the opposite party Bank and deposited a cheque bearing No.030018, dt.14-02-05 for Rs.1,80,000/- in the name of ‘Hari Krishna Traders’ vide current account No.101/1154, which is being run by the 2nd complainant.


    The opposite party Bank has received said cheque and acknowledged on the counter foil. The above referred cheque was drawn by 1st complainant from his account with an intention to deposit the amount in his father’s account. But due to mistake, the 1st complainant has written his name on the face of the cheque and also signed on the back of it and deposited in the current account No.101/1154 of the 2nd complainant.

    The 2nd complainant drawn two cheques bearing Nos.22669 for Rs.14,100/- and 22670 for Rs.10,000/- respectively in favour of third party out of his current account No.101/1154 but the same were returned by the opposite party Bank for want of sufficient funds. Immediately both the complainants enquired with the opposite party Bank about return of cheques and came to know that an amount of Rs.1,80,000/- deposited through cheque dt.14-02-05 by the 1st complainant, was not credited in current account No.101/1154.


    These facts were brought to the notice of Manager of Bank and also given written complaint on 07-03-05. On verification, it was found that the cheque amount of Rs.1,80,000/- was paid to one R.Srinivasa Rao on 15-02-05 on behalf of 1st complainant. The complainants are not aware of the person known as R.Srinivasa Rao to whom the Bank has paid the amount. The 1st complainant never authorized anyone to take amount of Rs.1,80,000/- under cheque No.030018, dt.14-02-05, since he himself presented the said cheque for deposit in his father’s account. Thereafter, the complainants are informed about this issue to the Regional Office at Vijayawada.


    An officer came and enquired the matter on both sides. The opposite party gave police complaint on 19-03-05 as per the direction of Regional Office. After 15 days, the Regional Manager, Vijayawada visited opposite party Bank, on enquiry and on search, they found the “cheque deposit slip” in the waste basket. Thus, it is clear that there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite party who failed to credit the amount of Rs.1,80,000/- in the current account No.101/1154 of the 2nd complainant even though they acknowledged the deposit of aforesaid cheque by the 1st complainant. Therefore, the Bank is liable to pay an amount of Rs.1,80,000/- with interest @ 24% p.a. from the date of cheque i.e., 14-02-05 till 14-11-06 which comes to Rs.2,66,400/- and subsequent interest till the date of realization.

    The complainants also suffered mental agony and lost reputation due to dishonour of cheques, which amounts to deficiency of service on the part of opposite party Bank. On this count, they claim compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-. Hence, the complaint.

    The opposite party Bank has filed its version denying all the allegations made in the complaint. The complainants are called upon to prove the said allegations strictly. Further it is submitted that on perusal of the cheque, pay in slip and counterfoil it is evident that the said cheque was issued by Mr.Sure Janaki Rama Krishna and drawn in favour of Mr. Sure Janaki Rama Krishna in his personal name and also signed on reverse of the cheque by Mr. Sure Janaki Rama Krishna (1st complainant) indicating all the features of a self drawn cheque.

    The 1st complainant on 14-02-05 presented the cheque bearing No.030018 for Rs.1,80,000/- at the counter and sought to be deposited in the account of M/s.Hari Krishna Traders (3rd complainant) a current account with the Bank. As a routine habit/practice, the round seal could have been affixed in the counterfoil. The bearer cheque (uncrossed) presented was self drawn in favour of Mr. Sure Janaki Rama Krishna and not matched/tallied with the name mentioned in the pay in slip i.e., M/s.Hari Krishna Traders. Hence, such cheque/instrument cannot be accepted for credit to the account of a business concern. Hence, the instrument then could have been returned to the 1st complainant by the opposite party for rectifying the same by attaching a fresh cheque or change the name of payee under authentication of account holder. Hence, the counterfoil did not contain any signature of the Bank officials.


    The complainant should have resubmitted the pay in slip with proper cheque. The 1st complainant who received the instrument back might have thrown the pay in slip in the dustbin available in the premises, after retaining the counterfoil with ulterior motive. The said main portion of pay in slip is produced herewith. The pay in slip was not acknowledged by the opposite party as alleged by the complainants. Taking advantage of the round seal on the counterfoil, the complainants have hatched up this false and fraudulent claim.

    The opposite party further submits that taking undue advantage of returning of cheque to 1st complainant who came to Bank along with others have hatched a plan and accordingly on the next day presented the said cheque for payment with the assistance of other persons putting signature of one Mr.K.Srinivasa Rao, a person believed to be representative of 1st complainant.

    As the said cheque was a bearer cheque (uncrossed) and the signature of bearer was obtained second time and got tallied, the said amount was paid by this opposite party in the usual course by observing the Bank norms. As this opposite party had discharged his duties in terms and norms prescribed, there is no deficiency on the part of opposite party.

    The opposite party also submits that the complainant cannot blame the opposite party without observing the required norms prescribed. A cheque uncrossed and drawn in favour of the same person (self drawn) is a bearer cheque and can be presented for payment by its bearer. In the instant case the cheque was drawn by Mr. Sure Janaki Rama Krishna in his own favour and the instrument was presented by one Mr.K.Srinivasa Rao a person believed to be representative of the 1st complainant. More so, the payee’s name in the cheque (Sure Janaki Rama Krishna) and the name mentioned in the pay in slip (M/s.Hari Krishna Traders a business firm) is not one and the same and not tallied with the payee’s name.

    It may be seen, the party without writing the name of firm i.e., Hari Krishna Traders as payee, and also without crossing the instrument submitted to the Bank which is not in order and there is clear lapse on the part of 1st complainant in presenting the instrument on 14-02-05 to this opposite party. This clearly shows the negligence on the part of the 1st complainant and for the simple reason that the counterfoil was stamped by this opposite party can not be blamed.

    For deriving business benefits/transactions a cheque self drawn in favor of drawer himself can not be adjusted to the account of the business concern i.e., M/s.Hari Krishna Traders without drawers mandate and crossing the instrument. The opposite party lodged a complaint with the crime police Lalapet, Guntur under section 468, 471 and 420 IPC and the same was under investigation and result is awaited. The 1st complainant having failed to draw the cheque properly and to observe the norms prescribed by the Bank/RBI, the complaint is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed. The opposite party is not liable to pay Rs.2,66,400/- with interest thereon and so also compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for alleged pain and suffering. Therefore, it is prayed to dismiss the complaint.

    The 2nd complainant has filed his affidavit and the opposite party through its Chief Manager filed affidavit on 06-08-07 and as well as on 01-09-07 in support of their claim. The complainants have got marked documents Ex.A1 to A17 and the opposite party relied upon Ex.B1 and B2.

    Now the points for determination are that

    1. Whether the 1st complainant committed lapse and errored in drawing the cheque dt.14-02-05 as per the norms of the Bank and this amounts to negligence on his part as alleged by the Bank?

    2. Whether the Bank has committed deficiency of service in not crediting the cheque dt.14-02-05 for an amount of Rs.1,80,000/- in the account of Hari Krishna Traders belonging to 2nd complainant?

    3. Whether the complainants are entitled for sum of Rs.2,66,400/- as claimed in their complaint?

    4. To what relief?

    POINT No.1

    The facts of the case are not in dispute about the maintenance of saving Bank account and current account in the Bank of opposite party by both the complainants respectively. This is otherwise evident from passbook and statement of account filed by the complainants vide Ex.A1, A2 and A17. Therefore, the relationship of complainants as customers of Bank is also not in dispute. However, the contention of the Bank is that improper, irregular and incorrect procedure was adopted by the 1st complainant in drawing the cheque bearing No.030018, dt.14-02-05 for Rs.1,80,000/- and presenting the same before the Bank. In order to show the same, the Bank relied upon photostat copy of said cheque supplied to the complainants vide Ex.A3, counterfoil and pay in slip vide Ex.A4.

    As per the allegations made in the complaint, the 2nd complainant requested his son (1st complainant) for lending some amount to meet his day to day business requirements. Accordingly, his son has drawn the cheque with an intention to deposit the amount in his father’s account vide A/c.No.101/1154 maintained in the same Bank. If that be so, as put forth by the Bank the cheque is drawn vide Ex.A3 in the name of 1st complainant itself by mentioning his name as Sure Janaki Rama Krishna for a sum of Rs.1,80,000/-. Beneath the cheque, the 1st complainant has also signed his name as Sure Janaki Rama Krishna. The 1st complainant has also singed on the reverse of the cheque as Sure Janaki Rama Krishna.


    The cheque dt.14-02-05 was presented along with pay in slip. Whereas the pay in slip vide Ex.A14 shows the particulars as ‘Hari Krishna Traders’ vide account No.101/1154 in the name of account holder S.V.Punna Rao (2nd complainant) for sum of Rs.1,80,000/- both in words and figures. The counterfoil of pay in slip also mention the same particulars. On close observation of photostat copy of cheque and pay in slip along with its counterfoil, the particulars mentioned are in contrast. In other words, the cheque particulars and pay in slip particulars are not same. The cheque is not crossed one. This indicates that the cheque is drawn as self by mentioning his own name and it becomes a bearer cheque as per the provisions of Negotiable Instrument Act and Banking rules.


    This was presented in the counter on the same day i.e., on 14-02-05 by the 1st complainant itself who was admittedly accompanied by two others. In the usual course, the person available at the counter alleged to have put the Bank seal on the counterfoil of pay in slip and gave it to the 1st complainant as he is a known customer of the Bank. On receipt of the same and on finding the particulars mentioned in the cheque are different with the particulars mentioned in the deposit form i.e., pay in slip, the person incharge of the counter alleged to have returned the said cheque to the 1st complainant with instructions either to get fresh cheque in the name of Hari Krishna Traders vide account No.101/1154 or make corrections in the said cheque.


    However, the pay in slip as become useless, alleged to have been thrown into dustbin of the Bank. It is further case of the Bank that on next day i.e., on 15-02-05 as the said cheque was presented for encashment through K.Srinivasa Rao whose signature is found on the reverse of the cheque beneath the signature of Sure Janaki Rama Krishna (1st complainant) and as it is a bearer cheque, to ascertain the same once again the signature of bearer i.e., K.Srinivasa Rao was also obtained and cash was paid in usual course as per the Banking norms.


    Thus according to the Bank, the alleged intention of the complainants to deposit sum of Rs.1,80,000/- in the current account No.101/1154 maintained by the 2nd complainant in the name of Hari Krishna Traders has not been carried out as there is variance in particulars. The cheque was taken back along with counterfoil on which Bank round seal was put. On the next day i.e., on 15-02-05 the same cheque was encashed through its bearer K.Srinivasa Rao known to them only and this amounts to clear lapse and negligence on the part of the 1st complainant in not following procedure.

    We have given our thorough consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case on hand coupled with the evidence on record and convince with the submissions made on behalf of Bank. The 1st complainant is maintaining saving Bank account in opposite party Bank for quite sometime and he was also doing LIC business as an agent and as such he is expected to know difference between bearer cheque and account payee cheque. Had it been real intention of 1st complainant to put the said amount in his father’s account he would not have drawn the said cheque in his self name and also sign on the reverse of the cheque. On the other hand, for the reasons best known to him he has filled up the pay in slip in the name of ‘Hari Krishna Traders’ of his father’s account. As there is variance in the particulars mentioned both in the cheque and pay in slip, on verification, Bank has rightly returned the cheque on the same day itself i.e., on 14-02-05. Nothing prevented the 1st complainant either to correct the said cheque by mentioning his father’s account in the name of Hari Krishna Traders or to draw a fresh cheque and deposit the same with the pay in slip with the Bank.


    It has been not done so. On the other hand, the cheque has been taken back along with counterfoil of pay in slip which contained the round seal of the Bank. Therefore, we are of the view that the 1st complainant has committed lapse, irregularity and as well as negligence. The point is answered accordingly.

    POINT No.2

    It is the contention of complainants that by mistake, 1st complainant has drawn the cheque in his name though he has mentioned correct particulars of the account and name of the firm as Hari Krishna Traders (3rd complainant) with an intention to deposit the amount and the Bank has also acknowledged the cheque by putting its round seal in the counterfoil of the pay in slip as such it ought to have deposited in the name of 3rd complainant in current account No.101/1154. As the Bank acknowledged the cheque by issuing counterfoil by rightly putting its seal, it committed an error by encashing the same fraudulently in the name of third party with the collusion of Bank officials. Therefore, according to the complainants, it is a negligent act on the part of Bank and thus amounts to deficiency of service.

    No doubt as seen from the counterfoil of the pay in slip vide Ex.A4, the Bank seal is very much appearing but there are no initials of the Bank officials. It is not uncommon to notice that some Banks are putting initials along with stamps on the counterfoil and some Banks only its seal. Of late the Banks also adopting practice by keeping separate drop box for deposit of cheques and other instruments. This particular cheque admittedly presented at the counter. As stated supra in the preceding point, the person incharge of the counter, in usual course and as customer is known, first put the seal on the counterfoil of the pay in slip and gave it to the 1st complainant. On verification of cheque particulars along with pay in slip particulars, the cheque was returned to the 1st complainant.

    What we observe here is that as per the practice and procedure and Banking rules, on thorough verification of the particulars of the cheque and pay in slip and on tallying the same, the person incharge of the Bank ought to have put the seal on the counterfoil of pay in slip and handed over to the person who presented the same. But this has not been done so. This amounts to clear lapse on the part of Bank. So also it is surprising to note that pay in slip vide EX.A14 (Ex.B1) was found in the Bank in a dustbin 15 days later when Manager from Regional Office came and inquired. This is the allegation of the complainants. Whereas the Bank put forth that the 1st complainant who received instrument back might have thrown the pay in slip in the dustbin available in the premises, after retaining the counterfoil with ulterior motive.


    If this is the correct version as alleged by opposite party, it is not understood as to how the pay in slip remained in the dustbin in the premises of Bank for such a long time without being cleaned. Even otherwise it is not made clear as to when it was traced out. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances and the mode and manner the whole transaction dealt with, we are of the view that putting seal of the Bank on the counterfoil of the pay in slip and handing over the same to the complainant and further tracing the pay in slip in dustbin or elsewhere in the Bank after such a long time appears to be lapse on the part of Bank.

    Except those two factors there appears to us no deficiency of service on the part of Bank in not crediting the cheque amount to the current account No.101/1154 in the name of Hari Krishna Traders. This cannot be done so as the particulars mentioned in the cheque and pay in slip are at variance. Therefore, the Bank has rightly returned the cheque on 14-02-05 itself to the 1st complainant. Giving credit of the amount by passing said cheque is against the Bank norms. Therefore, the Bank is not expected to act upon such cheque and credit the amount in the name of Hari Krishna Traders. The point is answered accordingly.

    POINT No.3

    The complainants herein claiming cheque amount of Rs.1,80,000/- and interest thereon apart from compensation amount alleging that the Bank due to its negligence or otherwise collusively with Bank officials encashed the cheque terming it as a bearer cheque.


    Thus they suffered loss. Further believing that the said cheque has been given credit and funds available in the account of Hari Krishna Traders, the 2nd complainant issued two cheques for sum of Rs.10,000/- on 14-02-05 vide Ex.A5 and for Rs.14,000/- in favour of third parties and they were returned on the basis of funds insufficient. The complainants have also filed return memos vide Ex.A6 and A9. This is said to have affected their reputation. We observe that for all these acts the Bank is no way responsible as the cheque dt.14-02-05 was not drawn properly for giving credit into the account of Hari Krishna Traders.


    This is a clear lapse on the part of 1st complainant. He did not take steps even on 15-02-05 or subsequently either to present fresh cheque or correct the cheque on proper lines. On the other hand, as rightly contended by the Bank, taking advantage of the counterfoil of pay in slip which contains Bank seal, the same cheque was encashed through its bearer known to the 1st complainant in the name of K.Srinivasa Rao. The Bank was also cautious enough in obtaining signature of the bearer on the reverse of cheque and in discharging its onus as per the Bank norms.

    The Bank also lodged police complaint with crime branch Lalapet Police Station; they in turn investigated the case and filed final report stating that the same is undetectable. It appears that for police also it became a difficult task in detecting the person who has signed his name as K.Srinivasa Rao. It is also pertinent to note that the 1st complainant herein did not file his affidavit traversing the allegations made in the version of opposite party Bank. His father alone (2nd complainant) has filed his affidavit who is not in picture at the time of presenting cheque on 14-02-05 or on 15-02-05. It was competent for the 1st complainant itself to traverse the allegations made in the version and explain about the mode and manner of the Bank transaction and events that took place on both the days. He is specifically silent about the same.

    The learned counsel for complainants relied upon following two citations in support of his contentions.

    II (1994) CPJ 580, Canara Bank & others Vs. Sreeram Srinivas, in which the State Commission in para 6 and 7 held that:

    “We are not inclined to agree with this contention. In the criminal case, the question whether there is negligence on the part of the Bank Manager in not properly verifying the signature and also in not identifying Gangaram who presented the cheque to the bank are not germine for deciding the criminal case and on the other hand the main question would be whether the cheque was forged or not. But the enquiry to be made in this complaint is whether there was negligence on the part of the Manager constituting deficiency of service within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act or not. Hence, the scope of the enquiry in this complaint is different from that of the enquiry in the criminal case. We therefore, do not see any substance in this connection.

    A reading of the aforesaid section shows that if a cheque is originally expressed to be payable to bearer, the drawee is discharged by payment in due course to the bearer thereof notwithstanding any endorsement. But in this case the cheque was issued in the name of Gangaram, it will not absolve the bank Manager from properly verifying the signatures and also having proper identification of Gangaram before payment of substantial amount of Rs.20,000/-. Hence, we are not inclined to accept the aforesaid contention.”

    As far as maintaining complaint before this Forum there is no bar because the criminal case was under investigation at the time of its filing. Further more criminal case was closed as undetectable. As far as facts of that case are concerned, the cheque was issued in the name of one Ganga Ram and the Bank failed to verify the signatures and also identification of the said person in encashing the same.

    In the instant case, the cheque was drawn in the name of 1st complainant itself without crossing the same and next day it was sent through a bearer on signing the name of 1st complainant on the reverse of cheque and the Bank has rightly discharged its duty on encashing the same to its bearer.

    III (2007) CPJ 233, ICICI Bank Vs. Kusum Rani & Anr., in which the Delhi State Commission, New Delhi in para 11 observed as follows:

    The facts of the case are that the 1st respondent issued a self/bearer cheque i.e., herself as she wanted to transfer the amount from her account in the appellant Bank and dropped the same in the drop box of the appellant Bank, Connaught Place Branch, New Delhi. When she got her passbook updated she learnt that the amount of the said cheque had not been credited to her account in the appellant Bank. The cheque had been encashed on 10-06-05 by someone of the staff of the appellant Bank. She approached the Manager and lodged a complaint and she was promised that all possible action would be taken to get her money back. She also lodged complaint with police station on the same day.


    Thereafter, she visited the Bank on several occasions but did not get any favourable response and she was told that the 2nd respondent Bank encashed the cheque and there is no negligence and deficiency of service on their part. The Bank has contented that self/bearer cheques cannot be dropped in box and cannot be accepted for clearance. The cheques/instruments dropped in the drop box of the Bank are under the joint custody of two Bank employees and only the authorized custodian can have access to the said cheques/instruments dropped in the drop box. The negligence is also attributed on her part.

    The above referred facts covered by the citation are different from the facts of the case. Therefore, the aforesaid two decisions are not applicable to the present case.

    Thus, we are of the view that the complainants are not entitled either for cheque amount of Rs.1,80,000/- or for compensation as alleged in their complaint as there is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party Bank except the lapse as referred above committed by it. On this premise, the opposite party Bank is to be penalized suitably, so that in future such errors may not be committed by the officials of the Bank. We feel it proper to fix the compensation of Rs.10,000/- on this count and accordingly we award the same.

    In the result, the complaint is disposed of with the following terms:

    1. The Forum holds that the 1st complainant has committed lapse, irregularity and adopted incorrect procedure in drawing up the cheque dt.14-02-05 and filing the pay in slip.
    2. Further the Forum also holds that the opposite party has committed lapse and error in putting the seal of Bank on counterfoil of pay in slip without verification of the entries made in the cheque dt.14-02-05 and pay in slip and handing over the counterfoil containing the Bank seal to the 1st complainant and tracing out the pay in slip during the course of enquiry.
    3. Therefore, for the aforesaid lapse the Bank is liable to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- to the complainants.
    4. The Forum further hold that the complainants are not entitled for the amounts claimed in the complaint from the Bank as there is no deficiency of service committed by the Bank in not crediting the amount of the cheque dt.14-02-05 in the name of “Hari Krishna Traders” vide current account No.101/1154. Therefore, their claim is dismissed on this count.
    5. Each party shall bear their own costs.
    6. The aforesaid amount of Rs.10,000/- shall be paid within in a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which it shall carry interest @ 9% p.a. till the date of realization.
  • adv.singhadv.singh Senior Member
    edited January 2010
    R.P..NO.6/2009
    (Against order in CMP.86/07 in C.C.Sr.138/2007 on the file of the

    DCDRF, Chennai (North)

    DATED THIS THE 6th DAY OF NOVEMBER 2009

    N. Amirthaguru, | Mr.S.Natarajan,

    S/o. N.R. Narayanaswami, | Counsel for Petitioner/

    28/1, A 4, Thirukumarapuram, | 2nd Complainant

    1st Main Road, Arumbakkam,

    Chennai – 106.

    Vs.

    1. Deputy General Manager, |

    Syndicate Bank Zonal Office, |

    69, Armenian Street, |

    Chennai 600 001 . | Mr.R.Raveendran, Counsel for

    | Respondents/Opp. Parties

    2. Branch Manager, |

    Syndicate Bank, |

    10, Mundy Street, |

    Vellore. |

    3. N. Kuppusamy, |

    S/o. N.P. Narayanaswami, |

    24, Ettiamman Koil Street, | (Given up)

    Thottapalayam, |

    Vellore. |

    The 1st Appellant and 3rd respondent as Complainants filed a complaint before the District Forum against the Respondents/opposite parties to repay Rs.2,62,189/- with interest, the excess payment made and to pay Rs.1 lakh for deficiency in service, Rs.2 lakhs towards mental agony and pain and Rs.10,000/- as cost. CMP.86/2007 was filed by the appellants/respondent to condone the delay of 2920 days, the District Forum dismissed the Petition on 15.12.2008. Against the said impugned order, this Revision Petition is filed.

    This Petition coming on before us for hearing finally on 05.11.2009. Upon hearing the arguments of the counsels on eitherside, this Commission pronounced the following order in the open court.



    M. THANIKACHALAM J.



    1. The Revision Petitioner, as second complainant, has filed a complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chennai (North), seeking a direction against the opposite parties for repayment of a sum of Rs.2,62,189/- with interest as if the amount was paid by them excessively for the loan borrowed, in addition, claiming a compensation of Rs.1 lakh. In the month of April 2007, as per the verification available in the copy of the complaint. Even according to the complainant, in moving the Consumer Forum, there is a delay of 2920 days, therefore, they have filed CMP.86/2007 under Section 24-A (2) of the Consumer Protection Act to condone the delay, alleging that due to some intervening proceedings taken by him, as well as the pendency of suits and other related matters, the delay in filing the complaint had occurred and it is neither willful nor wanton, thereby, praying to condone the delay. The opposite parties have opposed the condoning of the delay, by filing a detailed counter affidavit, praying to reject the application.



    2. The trial Forum by its order dated 15.12.2008, dismissed the petition, concluding, that the delay of 2920 days that is 6 years, cannot be condoned since the explanation offered is not acceptable.



    3. Aggrieved by the said order, this revision is aimed to up set the same, thereby, condoning the delay, to take the complaint on file.



    4. Heard the counsels for both sides, perused the entire records, as well as the order of the Lower Forum.



    5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner, would submit that the delay is properly explained by affidavit and unfortunately the lower forum without assigning any reason, dismissed the same, which should be set aside, in order to give an opportunity to the complainant, to agitate his case on merit before the lower forum, which is stoutly and vehemently opposed.



    6. Revision Petitioner’s father obtained a loan of Rs.1,40,000/- from the second opposite party, and purchased a lorry elsewhere in 1983. The second complainant was a Pigmy Agent of the second opposite party bank, who appears to have undertaken to settle the loan. As seen from the Paragraph 10 of the complaint, the loan was finally settled on 19.04.1996 on payment of Rs.4,17,242/-. It seems, it is the case of the complainant that they have paid excess interest or by the deficiency of the Bank, they have caused a loss of Rs.2,62,189/- and in this view, the case cam to be filed. Thus, it is seen, the cause of action, for filing the case had arisen on 19.04.96 and taking this date as cause of action alone, the delay is calculated, which is fixed as 2920 days. Admittedly, this is not an ordinary delay, would have been caused by inadvertently or in the ordinary course and in this view, it should be held, it is an extra ordinary delay, warranting satisfactory explanation, to condone the same to the satisfaction of the Forum.

    7. In Para 3 of the affidavit, it is said that due to intervening proceedings taken by the complainant such as suits, labour court matters, the delay had occurred, further stating, it is neither wanton or willful. No material has been placed, before the lower Forum or before us that the so called proceedings mentioned in the Para 3 of the affidavit, prevented the complainant from filing the case or they were impediments in filing the case before the Consumer Forum, or they are entitled to the exclusion of the said period, as if they have agitated their claim before the wrong Forum. This being the position, condoning the delay of 2920 days is not at all possible, as rightly held by the lower Forum, though it had not assigned elaborate reasons.

    8. Section 24-A (2) gives an opportunity for the party to explain the delay in order to condone the same when the complaint is filed after two years from the date of cause of action as contemplated under Section 24-A (1) of the Consumer Protection Act. In sub-section 2 of Section 24-A, it is said “if the complainant satisfies the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, that he had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within such period”, the Forum can entertain the complaint even a case has been filed after two years as prescribed under Section 24-A (1). By going through the affidavit, we are unable to satisfy ourselves, that the complainant had sufficient cause for not filing the case for so many days, spreading eight years namely 2920 days. If this kind of delay is accepted or condoned, that will cause irreparable loss and damage to the opposite parties and this cannot be ignored as such, though it is not stated so in sub-section (2) of Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act. By going through the claim, as well as by going through the affidavits, we are unable to find any reason or cause much less sufficient cause, to our satisfaction to condone the extraordinary delay. In this view, we conclude that the order of the lower forum in rejecting the application or dismissing the application to condone the delay is well justifiable, not warranting any disturbance.



    7. In the result, the Revision Petition is dismissed with cost of Rs.1,000/-.
  • adv.singhadv.singh Senior Member
    edited February 2010
    C.C.No:178/2009

    BETWEEN:

    Gunturu Anjaneyulu,

    S/o Anjaiah, Agriculturist,

    R/o Mangalipalem,

    Santhanuthalapadu Village,

    S.N. Padu Mandal.

    ... Complainant.

    Vs.

    1. The Branch Manager,

    Syndicate Bank,

    Main Road,

    Santhanuthalapdu Village,

    Prakasam District.
    2. The Lead Bank Manager,

    Prakasam District,

    Upstairs Syndicate Bank,

    Nellore Bus Stand,

    Ongole.

    3. The Regional Manager,

    Syndicate Bank,

    Opp: Maruthi Show Room,

    Ruthivik Enclave,

    Andhrakesari Nagar,

    Nellore. …Opposite parties.

    COUNSEL FOR COMPLAINANT : SRI K. SRINIVASULU,

    ADVOCATE, ONGOLE.

    COUNSEL FOR OPPOSITE PARTIES : O.N. SASTRY,

    ADVOCATE, ONGOLE.

    This complaint is coming on 12.01.2010 for final hearing before us and having stood over this day for consideration this Forum delivered the following:

    ORDER:

    1. This is a complaint filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite parties.



    2. The averments in the complaint are as follows:- The complainant availed agricultural gold loan of Rs.25,000/- under AGL No.1109/2007 dated 24.05.2007 and another loan of Rs.25,000/- under AGL No.1128/2007 dated 26.05.2007 from the 1st opposite party. Later, the Government decided to waive the loans for which the Reserve Bank of India issued guidelines. As per the guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India all the loans below Rs.50,000/- which were granted before 31.03.2007 overdue as on 31.02.2007 and remained unpaid up to 29.02.2008 are eligible for waiver. The complainant made repeated requests to the 1st opposite party to waive the loan and return the gold ornaments. But the 1st opposite party refused to return the gold ornaments though the complainant is eligible under the scheme. As matter stood thus, the 1st opposite party issued auction notice to auction the complainant’s gold ornaments on 10.08.2009. As there is no other go the complainant paid Rs.6,000/- on 25.07.2009 for stopping the auction. The 1st opposite party has been harassing the complainant with out any reasonable cause though the complainant is eligible under the scheme. Hence, he is constrained to file the complaint.

    2. 1st opposite party filed its counter and opposite parties 2 and 3 filed memo adopting the counter filed by the 1st opposite party. In their counter the opposite parties are contending as follows:- It is true that the complainant availed two gold loans from the 1st opposite party. As per the guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India, all direct agricultural loans disbursed during the period from 01.04.1997 to 31.03.2007 and over due as on 31.12.2007 and remaining unpaid until 29.02.2008 are eligible for waiver. In the present case admittedly the complainant availed loans on 24.05.2007 and 26.05.2007 respectfully. The complainant is not entitled for waiver because the loan is obtained after 31.03.2007. For the forgoing reasons the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

    3. On behalf of the complainant Ex.A1 was marked. Ex.A1 is the Xerox copy of Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008-2009 with terms and

    Conditions

    4. No documents are marked on behalf of the opposite parties.

    5. The point for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs in the complaint?

    6. The case of the complainant is that he availed agricultural gold loan of Rs.25,000/- under AGL No.1109/2007 on 24.05.2007 and another loan of Rs.25,000/-under AGL No.1128/2007 on 26.05.2007 from the 1st opposite party. As per the guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India, all loans below Rs.50,000/- which were granted before 31.03.2007 over due as on 31.12.2007 and remained unpaid up to 21.09.2008 are eligible for waiver. Though the complainant is eligible for waiver the opposite party is not waiving the loan and hence the complaint.

    7. As per the guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India marked as Ex.A1 loans disbursed up to 31.03.2007 overdue as on 31.12.2007 and remained unpaid up to 21.08.2008 alone are eligible for waiver under the scheme. In the present case it is the specific case of the complainant that he availed gold loans on 24.05.2007 and 26.05.2007 from the 1st opposite party. As per the scheme loans availed before 31.03.2007 alone are eligible waiver under the scheme. In the present case admittedly the complainant availed loan after 31.03.2007 which is not covered under the scheme. Therefore the complainant is not eligible for waiver and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

    8. In the result, petition is dismissed. In the circumstance with out costs.
  • edited July 2014
    Dear sir ,
    I VEDPAL SINGH My Account no is 93032200002181 branch - Bachhgaon
    IFSC -SYNB0009303
    My company has send my salary in this account through SWIFT Transfer and still I didn't reacived that money in my account.
    and fileTRANJECTION that is came in head branch Mumbai on 25th June but I m still waiting for credit in my account.
    And I have a MT103 standard copy of TRANJECTION






    Sent from my iPhone
Sign In or Register to comment.