State Bank of Mysore

adminadmin Administrator
COMPLAINT FILED: 27.09.2008 BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN) 21st MARCH 2009 PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER COMPLAINT NO. 2126/2008 COMPLAINANTS 1. Smt. Savithri. K.C. W/o. B.R. Prasad, Aged 50 years, Residing at No. 44/A, 7th Main Road, Railway Colony, Shankarnagar, Mahalakshmi Layout, Bangalore – 560 096. 2. Simi Prasad, D/o. B.R. Prasad, Aged 24 years, Residing at No. 44/A, 7th Main Road, Railway Colony, Shankarnagar, Mahalakshmi Layout, Bangalore – 560 096. Advocate (K.N. Praveen Kumar) V/s. OPPOSITE PARTY The Branch Manager, State Bank of Mysore, Ist Block, Rajajinagar Branch, Bangalore – 560 010. Advocate (T.S. Mahabaleswara) O R D E R This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to pay a sum of Rs.8,700/- and compensation of Rs.50,000/- on an allegations of deficiency in service. The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under: The present complainants are having joint account at OP bearing No. 54021775687. Complainant deposited a cheque bearing No. 378662 drawn on ICICI Bank issued by one Smitha Pillai for a sum of Rs.8,700/- on 23.04.2008. The said Smitha Pillai had a sufficient balance at her account when she issued the said cheque. Though initially OP credited the amount to their account but subsequently on 02.05.2008 debited the said amount from complainant account with a remark claim of clearing 23.04.2008 transferred to 09854440197. The arbitrary act of the OP has caused both mental agony and financial loss to the complainant, that too for no fault of theirs. The repeated requests and demands made by the complainants to re-credit the said amount covered under the cheque, went in futile. Hence complainant felt the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Under the circumstances they are advised to file this complaint and sought for the relief accordingly. 2. On appearance, OP filed the version denying all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. According to OP it has not received credit of the related cheque. On enquiry they came to know that the related cheque has been listed to Vijaya Bank instead of ICICI Bank by the Canara Bank MICR Center. When OP Bank contacted Vijaya Bank it was informed that they have not received the referred cheque. Under the circumstances it is the sole duty of the Canara Bank MICR Center to sort out and send the cheque to the concerned Bank and credit the amount to the respondent Bank properly. No fault lies with the OP. Complainants have to redress their grievance against the Canara Bank and Vijaya Bank. Till today the proceeds of the said cheque are received by the OP nor the cheque is returned to them. There is an option for the complainant to obtain duplicate cheque. Though it was informed to the complainants they have not exhausted the said remedy. The details of the drawer was also furnished, no action is taken. The non-cooperation of the complainant prevented the OP from persuing the matter with the drawer of the cheque. The complaint is devoid of merits. Among these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP has also filed the affidavit evidence and produced the documents. Then the arguments were heard. 4. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under: Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant has proved the deficiency in service on the part of the OP? Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs now claimed? Point No. 3 :- To what Order? 5. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on: Point No.1:- In Affirmative Point No.2:- Affirmative in part Point No.3:- As per final Order. R E A S O N S 6. At the outset it is not at dispute that these complainants have got the S.B. Account at OP Bank and they deposited a cheque drawn on ICICI Bank by one Smt. Smitha Pillai for a sum of Rs.8,700/- on 23.04.2008. It is also not at dispute that initially OP credited the said amount to the account of the complainants, but subsequently on 02.05.2008 it is debited from the complainants account with some remark. When complainant questioned the said arbitrary act of the OP, OP did not respond positively and gave evasive reply. Hence they felt the deficiency in service. Complainant even caused the notice. Again there was no response from the OP. The evidence of the complainant appears to be very much natural, cogent and consistent. There is nothing to discard the sworn testimony of the complainant, it finds corroboration from the contents of the undisputed documents. 7. As against this unimpeachable evidence of the complainant, the defence set out by the OP appears to be defence for defence sake, it wants to throw the burden and blame on the Canara Bank MICR Center and Vijaya Bank. It appears the Canara Bank sent the said cheque to the Vijaya Bank instead of ICICI Bank. When OP came to know of the said fact it would have got sorted out the said mistake immediately and would have helped the customer the consumer like complainants, but they have not taken any steps. When there is a proof that complainants deposited the said cheque with the OP, it is for the OP to comply the other formalities, but it is not done. Here we find the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. 8. Merely because till today the proceeds of cheque nor the cheque is returned to the OP, is no ground. It is for the OP to make sincere efforts by contacting Canara Bank MICR Center and Vijaya Bank and help the customer, but it has failed in its duty. Strangely OP has come up with a defence that complainants would have obtained the duplicate cheque from the person who has given it. Why should complainants obtain the duplicate cheque when no fault lies with them. So OP cannot direct the complainant what they should do, it is advisable OP should discharge its obligation. Again no such steps are taken. Under such circumstances we find there is a liability on the part of the OP in not extending defect free service. 9. We are satisfied that the complainant is able to prove the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. As already observed by us, for no fault of theirs, complainants were made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. Under such circumstances they are entitled for the relief claimed. Accordingly we answer point nos.1 and 2 and proceed to pass the following: O R D E R The complaint is allowed in part. OP is directed to pay Rs.8,700/- to the complainant in pursuance of the cheque referred to and also pay a compensation of Rs.1,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.500/-. This order is to be complied within 4 weeks from the date of its communication.

Comments

  • adminadmin Administrator
    edited September 2009
    ORDER


    BEFORE THE MANDYA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANDYA PRESENT: 1. SIDDEGOWDA, B.Sc., LLB., President, 2. M.N.MANOHARA, B.A., LLB., Member, 3. A.P.MAHADEVAMMA, B.Sc., LLB., Member, ORDER Complaint No.MDF/C.C.No.16/2009 Order dated this the 9th day of April 2009 COMPLAINANT/S Sri.S.N.Shivaramu S/o Late Narayanappa, R/o No.123, Kapila Marga, Siddarthanagar, Mysore. (By Sri.T.N.Nagananda., Advocate) -Vs- OPPOSITE PARTY/S 1. The Manager, State Bank of Mysore, Krishnarajapete Branch, Krishnarajapete, Mandya District. 2. Smt.Sumithramma W/o Late Nanjundaiah, Sarangi Village, Santhebachanahalli Hobli, Krishnarajapete Taluk, Mandya District. (EXPARTE) Date of complaint 13.02.2009 Date of service of notice to Opposite parties 19.02.2009 Date of order 09.04.2009 Total Period 1 Month 20 Days Result The complaint is dismissed as not maintainable and the complainant is directed to approach the Civil Court for the relief sought for. Sri.Siddegowda, President 1. This complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 against the Opposite party for a direction to continue the fixed deposit which is in the joint account and to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/-. 2. The case of the complainant is that by selling the family properties, the amount was deposited in FD in the Opposite party Bank in the joint account of the complainant and his brother’s wife Smt.Sumithramma (2nd Opposite party) in joint account No.C.S.T.D.R.98063775 amounting to Rs.1,00,650/- with provision to deposit the accrued interest to the S.B. account of the 2nd Opposite party, so that 2nd Opposite party could utilize that amount for her maintenance. The said F.D. receipt was renewed on 31.12.2006 in joint account with same provision. In the month of May 2008, when the complainant enquired in the Opposite party Bank, it was learnt that the entire FD amount had been taken by the 2nd Opposite party, though it was joint account. Further, the 2nd Opposite party has obtained loan of Rs.10,000/- from the Opposite party Bank on her pension amount and paid two installments at Rs.500/- each. Later loan of Rs.27,000/- was obtained on the FD receipt jointly by the complainant and 2nd Opposite party and it was agreed to deduct Rs.1,500/- from the pension of the 2nd Opposite party, but the Opposite party Bank has not deducted the loan installment from the pension account of the 2nd Opposite party and failed to discharge their duties in collusion with the 2nd Opposite party. The complainant came to know that the entire FD amount has been released by the Opposite party Bank in favour of the 2nd Opposite party, though it is a joint account FD and in this regard legal notice dated 20.05.2008 was issued. The Opposite party Bank has sent reply pleading that the complainant has put consent signatures to the loan documents in case of non-payment of the loan to adjust from the FD amount and therefore, the loan amount with interest totally Rs.39,242/- was deducted from the FD amount and the account was closed on 09.01.2008 and the remaining Rs.64,758/- was credited to the SB account of the 2nd Opposite party. But, the complainant has put consent signature for the loan purpose of 2nd Opposite party and not agreed for the realisation of the loan amount from the FD receipt. Therefore, the action of the 1st Opposite party is dereliction of duty and have committed deficiency in service. The transaction of adjusting the loan amount from the FD amount was not brought to the notice of the complainant and therefore, the consent signature for the said transaction does not arise. The alleged signatures for the adjustment of FD amount to the loan are except forged signatures and not consent signatures. Therefore, the present complaint is filed. 3. The notice was issued to 1st Opposite party and though served, 1st Opposite party has remained absent and thus 1st Opposite party is placed exparte. 4. The complainant has filed affidavit and the documents. 5. We have heard the counsel for the complainant. 6. Now the points that arise for our considerations are:- 1. Whether the complaint is maintainable before the Consumer Forum? 2. Whether the 1st Opposite party has committed deficiency in service? 3. Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief sought for? 7. Our findings and reasons are as here under:- 8. From the available records, the undisputed facts are that the complainant and 2nd Opposite party Smt.Sumithramma deposited amount of Rs.1,06,050/- in joint account on 19.08.2006 for fixed period with provision to transfer the interest to the account of 2nd Opposite party Smt.Sumithramma and again on 31.12.2006, the said FD was renewed under joint account No.C.S.P/T.D.R.98063775 and said Smt.Sumithramma has borrowed the loan. According to the reply notice of the Opposite party Bank, the loan was borrowed by offering the FD receipt as security and the complainant has put signature for all the loan documents and since Smt.Sumithramma did not pay the interest and loan amounting to Rs.39,242/- as on 09.01.2008, it was adjusted from the FD amount and remaining Rs.64,758/- was credited to the S.B. Account of Sumithramma. But, according to the complainant, though on the security of FD bond, loan of Rs.27,000/- was sanctioned with consent of the complainant and 2nd Opposite party, but he had agreed to adjust Rs.1,500/- from the pension account of the 2nd Opposite party to the loan borrowed and hence, the complainant has not at all consented and executed documents to adjust the FD amount to the loan borrowed and if any documents are there, the signatures are forged and without bringing to the notice of the complainant, FD amount has been adjusted to the loan and this came to his knowledge, after receipt of the reply notice from the Opposite party Bank. when it is admitted that FD is given as security for the loan of Rs.27,000/-, it cannot be said that bank has no authority to adjust the same if loan is not cleared in view of the right of general lien under Section 171 of Contract Act. 9. Now, the complainant has pleaded that the fraud is committed by the Opposite party Bank and his signatures are forged for the loan documents, though had not agreed for adjustment of the FD amount to the loan amount. 10. Even though, 1st Opposite party Bank has remained exparte and has not adduced documents controverting the allegations made by the complainant, but the very allegations in the complaint go to show the pleadings of fraud and the forging of the signatures of the complainant for the loan documents. These allegations are of Civil nature and cannot be decided by this Forum as the Forum has jurisdiction only to consider whether the Opposite party Bank has committed deficiency in service to a customer. The allegations of the complainant against the Opposite party Bank required detail pleadings, evidence and documents are required to be dealt by the Civil Court in detail in Civil Suit and the allegations cannot be decided in a summary trial which is to be adopted by the Consumer Forum. Therefore, considering the facts of the case, we are of the opinion that it is just and proper to refer the parties to Civil Court for proper adjudication of the controversies pleaded and hence the question of deficiency in service and the relief sought for, does not survive for consideration. 11. In the result, we proceed to pass the following order; ORDER The complaint is dismissed as not maintainable and the complainant is directed to approach the Civil Court for the relief sought for.
  • Advocate.soniaAdvocate.sonia Senior Member
    edited September 2009
    Sri.T.K.S.Babu s/o. K.T.Krishnamurthy,

    Aged about 53 years,

    R/o. 5th cross, Sri Naga Nilaya, Complainant

    Siddaganga Extension,

    Tumkur town

    (By advocate Sri.Bendre KumarT.)



    AND



    1. The Branch Manager,

    State Bank of Mysore,

    Main branch, Church Square,

    Tumkur town Opposite parties

    2. The Manager,

    District Co-operative Central Bank Ltd,

    Koratagere branch,

    Koratagere

    3. The Manager,

    Professional courier,

    1st Cross, Mandipete,

    Tumkur town

    ORDER

    This is a complaint filed Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called as Act for short.

    2. Through this complaint, the complainant prays for an order against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter called as the OPs for short) to pay the cheque amount of Rs.85,000/- with interest from the date of presentation of the cheque till its realisation and to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards damages, mental agony along with costs and for such other reliefs.

    3. The facts given rise to institute the complaint may be summarized as thus:

    It is his grievances that, he is the customer of the 1st OP having SB account in that branch office vide SB A/c. No.54040321516. It is contended that, he had presented the cheque bearing No.32494 of 2nd OP branch for a sum of Rs.85,000/- for realization on 10-11-2008 through the 1st OP. The 1st OP had sent the cheque for realisation through 3rd OP (courier) to the 2nd OP branch. The said cheque was issued in favour of the complainant by Smt.Nagarathnamma w/o. Siddagangaiah of Bodabandanahally, Koratagere taluk.


    4. It is further contended that, after 3 to 4 days, the complainant when verified the balance in his account, he did not find the realisation of the cheque. Immediately, the complainant enquired the same with the 1st OP about non clearance of the said cheque, but the 1st OP dodged the matter on one or other way. Further, the complainant visited so many occasions before the 1st OP and enquired about the clearance of the cheque, but he did not get any positive result from the 1st OP.


    5. It is further contended that, after lapse of 3 ½ months, the complainant has got issued a legal notice to the OPs No.1 and 2 on 2-3-2009 and the said notices were duly served on the OPs No.1 and 2. On 5-3-2009 the 2nd OP has replied the same stating that the said cheque has not been received at any point of time for realisation. But the 1st OP did not reply the same.

    6. It is further contended that, the complainant had entered into an agreement with one person in respect of purchase of the property believing the encashment of the said cheque. The said agreement came to be terminated as he was unable to comply with the terms and conditions of the agreement. Due to the said facts, the complainant has suffered a lot both physically, mentally and financially. The cause of action arose on 10-11-2008 and legal notice dated 2-3-2009. Hence, this complaint.

    7. Among the OPs who have been notified of the complaint, the 1st OP put in his appearance through his counsel and resisted the same. The 2nd OP appeared in person. The 3rd OP inspite of service of the notice remained absent and accordingly he was placed exparte.

    8. The gist of the objections is as follows:

    The 1st OP while emphatically denying the complaint averments as false and untenable however admitted the allegation of presenting a cheque No.32494 dated 20-8-2008 for collection on 10-11-2008 through the 3rd OP from the 2nd OP. In so far as, other details narrated in the same para-2 of the complaint, he pleaded his lack of knowledge.


    9. It is further alleged that, the complainant did not turn up for over a period of 1 month. Later when he came, it was noticed that, the cheque was neither returned nor realized, the same was intimated to the complainant and started making enquiries about the cheque through the State Bank of Mysore, branch at Koratagere and with the 3rd OP. The cheque is not yet traced as it appears to have been lost in the transit. The 3rd OP has to state about the fact. Accordingly, he prays for dismissal of the complaint.

    10. In the objections filed by the 2nd OP, it is contended that, the complainant never presented the cheque for encashment through SBM Main branch Tumkur. It is also contended that said cheque has not been received by this bank for encashment. Therefore it is contended that there is no deficiency in service nor he is liable to pay any damages. It is also contended that, he is not a necessary party to the proceeding.

    11. In support of the case, the complainant and the 1st OP have filed their affidavits. The complainant has pressed in to service of several documents. We have heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties. We have also examined the materials available on record.

    12. The questions that arise for our considerations are:

    1. Is there is any deficiency of service by the OPs?

    2. Is the complainant entitled for the relief as prayed for?

    13. Our findings on the above questions are here under:

    Point No.1: Affirmative as against the 1st OP

    Point No.2: As per order

    REASONS

    14. At the very threshold, we must point out that, the allegation of the complainant in so far as, his SB account No.54040321516 with the 1st OP and presentation of a cheque bearing No.32494 in respect of sum of Rs.85,000/- is concerned, there is no dispute. It is also not in a dispute that the said cheque has been received by the 1st OP for encashment from the 2nd OP. It is also not in dispute that, the amount in question has not yet been realized and credited to the account of the complainant. It is the case of the complainant that, despite making enquires with the 1st OP about the cheque no positive reply was given. From the document produced by the complainant, it is seen that, he had presented the cheque of Rs.85,000/- bearing No.32494 of 2nd OP for encashment and credit to his account No.54040321516.

    The said document bears the seal of the 1st OP branch and signature of the concerned official of the said branch. When the 1st OP has received the cheque from the complainant for realization through the 2nd OP the burden shifts on the 1st OP to establish that, it had presented the cheque for encashment from the 2nd OP through the 3rd OP. The legal notice issued by the complainant and reply given by the 2nd OP clearly demonstrated that, the cheque was not received by the 2nd OP. Therefore, the 1st OP should explain as to what had happened to the cheque and why the amount was not realized and credited to the account of the complainant. The conduct of the 1st OP in denying the allegation of the complainant evenafter admission of the presentation of the cheque for realization from the 2nd OP, clearly spells out their deficiency in service.

    It is neither pleaded by the 1st OP that, he had promptly presented the cheque for encashment from the 2nd OP by availing the service of the 3rd OP nor placed materials to show their bonafide action taken in this regard. Admittedly, the cheque in question has not been realized and credited to the account of the complainant. Therefore, in our view, the 1st OP is primarily guilty of negligence of its duties and thereby committed in deficiency in service. As such, we are of the opinion that, the 1st OP is liable to make good of the cheque amount and also to pay a reasonable compensation for causing mental agony and unnecessary hindrance to the complainant. Under the circumstance of the case, we quantify the compensation of Rs.5000/-.


    15. Being that opinion, we proceed to pass the following:

    ORDER

    The complaint is allowed in part with costs, directing the 1st OP to pay cheque amount of Rs.85,000/- together with compensation of Rs.5, 000/- to the complainant with in 8 weeks from the date of this order failing which, the 1st OP shall pay an interest at the rate of 10% per annum on the said sum of Rs.85,000/- from 10-11-2008 till payment. The costs of the proceedings is fixed at Rs.1000/-. It is also ordered that, the bank is liberty to make an enquiry against the errored person and recover it from such person. The complaint as against the OPs No.2 and 3 is hereby dismissed but without costs.
  • adv.sumitadv.sumit Senior Member
    edited September 2009
    I. Name of the compalinant: - Sri. Prashant Bhat S/o: Srikanth Bhat,

    Age: 55 Years, Occ: Leftinent in Defence.

    R/o: Firdos Nagar, Near I.B.

    Koppal, Tq:Dist: Koppal.




    VERSUS



    II. Name of the Opposite Parties: -
    1. The Manager,
    State Bank of Mysore,
    Hospet Road, Koppal.



    2. The Manger,
    State Bank of India,
    I.M.A. Premnagar,
    Dehra-Dun, (Uttaranchal).





    ORDER




    2. Brief facts of case are that, the complainant while he was serving in army at Dehra-dun had obtained SB A/c No.30211774461 with the 2nd opposite party and also having ATM facility to draw money from his said account. He had given ATM card to his father to use it in case of emergency; as such on 01-02-2008 father of the complainant went to State Bank of Mysore, Branch-Koppal (1st opposite party) and tried to withdraw Rs.4,000/- by putting ATM card properly at ATM installed in premises of the Bank. He did not get money despite operating the machine properly. However, in account of the complainant Rs.4,000/- was debited. He enquired with the opposite parties, they failed and neglected to process matter properly and delayed the same near about 1 year.


    Thus they have prevented the complainant to use sum of Rs.4,000/- for almost an year, which amounts to indirect deficiency in service on their part. As the father of the complainant was in need of money and could not get the same due to non-functioning of ATM installed at premises of the 1st opposite party, which amounts to indirect deficiency and negligence on part of the opponents, for which the complainant has suffered physically and mentally. With these and among other contentions he has prayed to grant compensation as claimed in the complaint.


    3. Upon service of summons both the opposite parties have appeared through their respective counsels and filed their separate written version. In its written version, the 1st opposite party denied allegations made in the complaint as false and baseless. Moreover, the complainant is not their customer; on the alleged date no excess money was found at bottom of the ATM box, as such the 1st opposite party is not responsible for the allegations made in the complaint.


    However, the 1st opposite party wrote a letter to the 2nd opposite party on 13-11-2008 stating that the transaction extract dated: 01-02-2008 pertaining to their ATM is not available due to technical defects, which is internal matter between the banking facilities and same is answerable to bankers but not to the complainant. There is no deficiency in service on part of this opposite party. With these and among other contentions learned counsel for the 1st opposite party has prayed to dismiss the complaint in the interest of justice and equity.


    4. The 2nd opposite party in its written version has contended that the complainant might have SB A/c and ATM facility with State Bank of India, Dehra-dun. They further admits that the complainant’s father might have visited ATM counter of the 1st opposite party and may not received amount from the ATM; this may be due to mistake in ATM system, which is quite natural, as there are thousands of ATM units established throughout India, such mistakes are very likely to happen for no fault on part of any banking institutions and its officers; for rectification of such machinery mistakes sufficient time is required.


    The 1st opposite party has admittedly taken all possible steps to correct mistake found in ATM machine and more particularly sum of Rs.4,000/-, which was wrongly parked has been credited to the complainant’s account on 07-03-2009 itself. The complainant is aware of this fact, as such his grievance thus no more subsist. There will be no willful negligence or deficiency in service on part of this opposite party. With these contentions, the 2nd opposite party has prayed to dismiss the complaint with cost.


    5. In order to prove allegations made in the complaint, the complainant, Sri. Prashant Bhat S/o: Srikanth Bhat, R/o: Koppal has filed his evidence on affidavit; same is treated as PW1 and closed his side. Sri. K.D.Kulakarni, Manager, State Bank of India, Koppal has filed his evidence on affidavit on behalf of the 2nd opposite party, same is treated as RW1.


    6. Arguments were heard from both sides, on perusal of material placed by both sides including decision relied upon by learned counsel for the complainant reported in 207 (1) CPR - 336 (NC) in the matter of J.P.Sharma V/s ICICI Bank Ltd., following points that arise for our consideration are;


    1. Whether the complainant proves that he was deprived by the opponents to use sum of Rs.4,000/- for about an year, which amounts to their indirect deficiency in service as alleged in the complaint?

    2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief sought for?
  • adv.sumitadv.sumit Senior Member
    edited September 2009
    COMPLAINANT



    SRI.J. LAKSHMANA RAO,

    ADVOCATE, BELLARY.



    //VS//



    1. THE BRANCH MANAGER,

    STATE BANK OF MYSORE,

    CANTONMENT BRANCH, BELLARY.



    2. THE BRANCH MANAGER,

    STATE BANK OF MYSORE,

    COWL BAZAR BRANCH, BELLARY.



    3. THE ASSISTANT GENERAL

    MANAGER, S.B.M. REGION NO.4,

    BELLARY.



    4. THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER,

    S.B.M., STATION ROAD, HUBLI.







    //JUDGMENT//



    This is the complaint filed by Complainant M.Arifulla against Respondent No.1 to 4 under Sec-12 of C.P. Act for to direct them to pay a sum of Rs.4,74,619/-, to close the Account of Delta Group, CB SBM, Bellary and to pay damage to the extent of Rs.8,00,000/- for not communicating compromise settlement order and to pay an amount of Rs.3,25,381/-towards mental agony, damages and other charges with other reliefs as deems fit to the circumstances of this case.



    2. The brief facts of the Complainant’s case are that;



    He is holding Two Accounts in his name at S.B.M. Cantonment Branch (Respondent No.1) and two Accounts in the name of his Son and his wife at S.B.M. Cowl Bazaar Branch (Respondent No.2) and one account in the name of Delta Group.


    They obtained loan of Rs.25,00,000/- and Rs.3,00,000/- from the Respondent No.1 in the name of Complainant and Rs.25,00,000/-, Rs.3,00,000/- and Rs.15,00,000/- in the name of his son from the Respondent No.2. His business became under loss. He is not in a position to satisfy the loan. Hence, they decided to wound up his business as such he approached the Respondents for compromise settlement on OTS basis. Concession asked by him for waiver of Rs.16.29 lakhs. The Respondents not properly responded to his request. He submitted his Memorandum of Compromise on OTS basis in writing to the Respondents, but they have not responded properly inspite of his repeated request. He exhausted all his available sources to satisfy the loan, but the Respondents not considered his request in writing even though oral assurance was given to him. They were negligent in considering his request and thereby the Respondents found guilty under deficiency in their services.




    3. The Respondent No.1 to 4 appeared in this case through their Advocate. The Respondent No.2 filed his Written Version and Respondent No.1, 3 and 4 have adopted the W.V. of Respondent No.2. The brief facts of W.V. of them are that;


    There is no deficiency in service on their part. As per the terms and conditions of loan documents, the Complainant not repaid the loan amount. He submitted his application for settlement of the claim under OTS. His application was rejected and informed to him. The controlling authority of the Bank namely Zonal Office, Divisional Office have rejected the claim of Complainant. An amount of Rs.2,53,603/- was paid to the Account of son of the Complainant. The Complainant not paid the outstanding dues as per his undertaking and OTS subject to payment of dues within the stipulated time.


    The Complainant took sufficient time to pay the loan amount, but not paid. All other allegations made against them have been denied. The Complainant obtained loan for the purchase of lorries for business purpose. He closed four accounts out of five accounts. One A/C No.5401412350 stands in the name of Delta Group is pending by showing outstanding balance amount of Rs.77,70,023/- with accrued interest. Hence, the complaint is not maintainable. Accordingly, they prayed for to dismiss the complaint among other grounds.


    4. In view of the pleadings of parties, now the points that arise for our consideration and determination are that;



    1. Whether the Complainant proves that the Respondent No.1 and 2 and their authorities Respondent No.3 and 4 not issued compromise settlement order on OTS basis, but they have issued illegal notice by demanding to pay Rs.16.29 lakhs from him without closing his accounts inspite of several oral and written requests, they are showing negligence in fulfilling his request, therefore, all the Respondents found guilty under deficiency in their services towards him?


    2. Whether the Complainant is entitled for reliefs as prayed in this complaint?



    3. To what relief the Complainant is entitled for?

    //POINTS//



    5. Our findings on the above points are as under.




    Point No.1:


    In Negative.



    Point No.2:


    In Negative.


    Point No.3:


    In view of the findings on Point Nos.1 and 2, we pass the final order for the following;

    //REASONS//
    Point Nos.1 & 2: -


    6. In order to prove the facts involved in these two Points, the affidavit evidence of Complainant was filed, he was noted as P.W.1. Documents Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.18 are marked. On the other hand, the affidavit evidence of Branch Manager, S.B.M. Cowl Bazaar Branch Respondent No.2 was filed, he was noted as R.W.1. Documents Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.18 are marked.



    7. We have observed from the pleadings of Complainant, his affidavit evidence P.W.1 and documentary evidences Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.18 and the Written Version of Respondents, evidence of R.W.1 and documentary evidences Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.18 that, this Complainant has opened two Accounts in the name of his son and one account in the name of Delta Group. He obtained loan of Rs.25,00,000/- and Rs.3,00,000/- in his name and Rs.25,00,000/- and Rs.3,00,000/- in the name of his son and Rs.15,00,000/- in the name of Delta Group from the Respondent No.1 and 2 Banks.


    Further it goes to show that he borrowed the loan with the Respondent No.1 and 2 under agreement for the purpose of purchase of Lorries for to run his commercial business. Further it appears to us that this Complainant has sustained loss and opted for to settlement of the said loan by way of compromise settlement on OTS basis by filing terms and conditions of the compromise. Further it appears to us that, four loan accounts of them were closed and one account not closed due to non-satisfaction of the entire amount. Further, it goes to show that, this Complaint arisen out of dispute regarding the payment of loan amount in between Complainant and Respondents.


    8. The agreements in between Complainant and Respondents are in respect of the said loan transactions which is based private agreement in between them and further it appears to us that the Respondents are not ready to entertain the compromise settlement on OTS basis due to non-payment of full loan amount. Under the said circumstances, we are of the view that, the dispute in between the Complainant and Respondents financier Banks is in respect of loan transactions and in such transactions there cannot be any deficiency in service by the Respondent No.1 and 2 Banks. Relied on the principles of the ruling reported in II (2000) CPJ 120 Asad Ullah Khan Vs. M.C. Motors & Ors., and I (1998) CPJ 16 Kulwant Singh Vs. Singh Finance Pvt. Ltd. Accordingly, we answered Point No.1 in Negative.



    9. In view of finding on Point No.1, the Complainant is not entitled for any one of the reliefs as prayed in this complaint. Accordingly, we answered Point No.2 in Negative.


    Point No.3: -


    10. In view of findings on Point Nos.1 & 2, we pass the following;

    The complaint filed by the Complainant is dismissed. All the parties to this complaint are directed to bear their own costs.
  • hardeepsainihardeepsaini Junior Member
    edited October 2009
    good one on mysore bank.
  • adv.singhadv.singh Senior Member
    edited February 2010
    COMPLAINT NO.561/09

    1. Sri. Abhilash Anand

    Aged about 24 years

    S/o. Sri. R. Anand
    2. Sri. Aditya Anand

    Aged about 19 years

    S/o. Sri. R. Anand



    Both are residing at

    No.5/4,3rd Street

    3rd Cross, Pemmegowda Road

    J.C. Nagar

    Bangalore-560 006
    COMPLAINT NO.562/09

    Sri. R. Anand

    Proprietor of

    M/s. Whole Some Foods

    No.5/4, 3rd Street, 3rd Cross

    Pemmegowda Road

    J.C. Nagar

    Bangalor5e-560 006
    V/s



    COMMON OPPOSITY PARTY FOR THE ABOVE COMPLAINTS

    Opposite Party:
    State Bank of Mysore

    Ambedkar Veedhi Branch

    Vishweshwaraya Towers

    Bangalore-560 001

    O R D E R
    SRI.D. KRISHNAPPA, PRESIDENT:



    The complainants of the first complaint are the sons of the complainant of the second complainant. The opponents being common in both these complaint with similar allegations against the Op with the prayer for awarding compensation to the complainants are taken together for disposal by a common order to avoid repetition of facts.
    The grievance of the complainant of the first complaint is that their father namely Anand had maintained an account with the Op with OD facility. That their father had made two RD accounts in their name separately with investment of Rs.6,248/- each with interest @ 11% p.a and as on the date of maturity i.e. on 18/05/2002. R.D. amount with interest became payable to them Rs.8,652/- each. The Op even earlier to 18/05/2002 which was the maturity date adjusted the total of Rs.17,304/- which is the maturity value of the investment towards dues of their father. That Op had filed a suit against their father in O.S. No.6929/01 and the Court in that suit directed Op to produce certain documents pertaining to recurring account and on the Op producing such documents they came to know this adjustment of RD towards the dues of their father the complainant of the second complaint and have prayed for direction to the OP to pay them Rs.17,304/- with interest.

    Whereas the complainant of the second complaint narrating that he had maintained account with the Op has stated that he had maintained recurring amount of Rs.25,956/- and that amount has been pre-maturely drawn and adjusted to his account without his consent and thereafter did not allow him to do further transactions. That he had RD of Rs.18,744/- and it was to be matured on 18/05/2002 with maturity value of Rs.25,956/-. But the Op pre-maturely appropriated that amount to his loan account on 29/08/2001. That he was not aware of that adjustment and when the OP filed a suit against him in O.S. No.6929/01 he came to know such adjustment and calling that act of the OP as deficient has prayed for a direction to Op to repay him Rs.25,956/- with interest.

    Op has appeared through his advocate in both cases and filed version. The version filed by the OP in both the cases being almost similar, is that the second complainant had account with them and has transacted in that account but denied that they have appropriated the RD account money of the complainants maintained with them was adjusted to the amount payable by this complaint without intimating him. The Op further stated that the allegations of complainant that he had no knowledge of RD amount adjusted towards his dues and that the complainant came to know the same in the suit referred to above is false. It is the contention of the Op that the complainant of the second complainant had loan account with them and when the second complainant became due Rs.92,061/- and they issued notice, but when they did not receive any reply had filed suit for recovery of Rs.59,697/- after adjusting the amount lying in the R.D. accounts in total sum of Rs.41,131/-. It is further stated that the suit filed by him came to be decreed and in that suit the court had upheld the adjustment of Rs.41,131/- which was the proceeds of RD accounts maintained by the second complaint and also the amount found from the RD accounts of the complainants of first complaint. The Op in the version filed in the first complaint has contended that 2 RD accounts maintained by the father of these complainants in their name as they were minor then was also adjusted towards the loan account of the second complainant and the Op further justifying his action of appropriating the RD amounts of all these complainants towards the amount due by the second complainant, has prayed for dismissal of these complaints.

    In the course of enquiry into the complaint, the complainant of the second complaint and Asst. Chief Manager of Ops have filed their affidavit evidence by reproducing the material facts as stated by them in their respective complaint and version. The complainants of the first complaint have filed copies of photos, Xerox copies of RD investment receipts, copy of legal notice they got issued to the Op with Xerox copies of the marks card of the complainant. Op has filed a complaint copy, copy of the written statement and copy of the judgment passed in OS No.6929/01. Heard the counsel for both the parties and perused the records.

    On basis of materials available before us following points for determination arise.

    1. Is the complaints are not barred by limitation.

    2. Whether the complainants prove that OP has caused deficiency in his service by appropriating RD amount standing in their name towards loan account of the complainant of the second complaint.

    3. To what relief the complainants are entitled to?

    Point No.1 & 2: In the negative.

    Point No.3 : To see the final order.
    REASONS:
    Answer on point No.1 & 2 :
    As found, the complainants of the first complaint have come up with this complaint against the OP claiming that their father had invested Rs.6,248/- each in their names with maturity date as 18/05/2002 with interest @ 11% p.a and become payable at Rs.8,652/- to each of them. But the Op even prior to the date of maturity, without their permission has adjusted those RD amounts to the loan account of their father, the complainant of the second complaint and thereby called this act of OP as deficient. Admittedly these amounts of the complainant got adjusted by the Op to the loan account of the complainant of the second complaint prior to 29/01/2001. But the complainants aggrieved by such act of Op have filed this complaint on 06/03/2009 which are in our view are barred by limitation and therefore, the complaint is to be dismissed as barred by limitation. The complainants have not filed any application for condonation of delay explaining the reasons as to why they did not file complaint within the stipulated period. However, the complainants in order to bring this complaint within the statutory period have contended that they came to know these deposits were pre-maturely closed and that amount was deposited to their father loan account and that came to their knowledge on 11/12/2008. But these complainants in Para 10 of their complaint and also in the body of their affidavit evidence have referred to a suit filed by the Op against their father in O.S No.6929/01, as per the copy of the judgment filed by both parties it is noticed that this suit came to be decreed against the complainants father on 14/07/2008.



    The complainant of the second complaint who is the father of complainant of the first complaint was the defendant against whom the Op filed suit in the year 2001 for recovery of the balance loan amount. The contention of the OP in that case was that they after appropriate the recurring deposits which were stand in the name of these three complainants prematurely to the loan account of the father had filed above suit for recovery of the balance amount. The complainant of the second complaint had contested that case and came to be decreed on 14/07/2008. The second complainant in that proceeds questioned the act of the Op in prematurely closing the RD account and appropriation of entire amount to his loan account. The Court upheld the act of the Op in prematurely closing the RD accounts and adjusting that amount to his loan account therefore when the father who had opened RD account in the names of first two complainants but were minors objected the act of the Op in appropriating those amounts after contest suffered a decree, therefore under these circumstances and facts of the case the complainants of the first complaint cannot be said to had no knowledge about the prematurity withdrawal and adjustment of those amounts to the loan account of their father. Therefore, the stand of the complainant’s that Op by doing so as caused deficiency in their service cannot be accepted. The complainants of the first complaint without questioning the act of the Op since from the time of premature withdrawal and slept over the matter cannot now after lapse of more than 6 to 7 years filing this complaint. Hence, we hold that the complainants are barred by limitations and they are liable to be dismissed on that ground.



    Further it could be seen from the claim of the complainants that they were aware of opening RD accounts in their name by their father and both the RD accounts were to be matured on 18/05/2002. Even assuming that the complainants did not know premature adjustment of those amounts until disposal of suit filed by the Op against their father, they should have enquired and verified to receive the maturity value of the RD’s made, after the deposits become matured on 18/05/2002 or after some time thereafter. Therefore, considering these facts we hold that the complaints found to have had the knowledge of maturity dates and prematurity value of the RD as on 18/05/2002 or even earlier. Thus considering these aspects also the complainants cannot be said they only came to know the adjustment of their RD amount by the Op towards their father loan account through Ops original suit.



    Coming to the second complainant who also claims to had an account maintained with the Op as RD account and he had made RD to the tune of Rs.18,744/- which was to be matured on 18/05/2002 and he would have received total sum of Rs.25,956/-. The second complainant further stated that the Op without waiting for that maturity date, adjusted that RD amount to his loan account on 29/08/2001. This second complainant was a party in the suit filed by the Op in OS No.6929/01 and that suit went on till 14/07/2008, on which date the judgment is delivered. In this proceedings of the suit, the complainant who was a defendant had even questioned the act of opponent in they having had pre-maturely withdrawing the RD accounts standing in the names of these complainants and RD account maintained by this complainant in the name of his wife and children. On perusal of the judgment rendered in that suit the court has up held the action of OP they in prematurely closing the accounts of all these complainants and appropriation of those amounts to the loan account of the second complainant. The complainant did not prefer any appeal questioning the correctness of the judgment referred to above. The Civil Court in the judgment of that suit as dealt with the dispute of both parties including the adjustment of RD accounts maintained in the name of these complainants pre-maturely. Therefore the judgment of the suit has become finality on the allegations of the complainants. The complainants after having suffered a judgment and decree and without challenging it have filed these complaints. Therefore, the complaints presented before this forum are liable to be dismissed on the grounds that they are barred by limitations and no application is filed for condonation of delay. Therefore, both these complaints are liable to be dismissed on the point of limitation.



    Coming to the merits of these complaints as stated above, the grievance of the complainants of the first complaint is regarding appropriation of RD amount invested in their names by their father, by premature withdrawal towards the loan account of the second complaint. The complainant of the second complaint is also that, the OP pre-maturely withdrawn the RD amount of his account and its appropriation to his loan account. These grievance of the complainants have already been categorically dealt with by Civil Court in O.S No.6929/01 which was disposed on 14/07/2008. The Court by referring to the contention of both parties to that suit including pre-mature withdrawal and appropriation of those amount has held that the OP who was plaintiff in that suit has rightly appropriated the RD amounts of both these complaints towards loan account of the complainant of the second complaint. The complainants without questioning the correctness of the judgment and decree passed by Civil Court and after that issue had become final and conclusive have filed these complaints to rake up the dispute which has already been settled and reached its finality. Hence, the matter where the grievance of the complainants/consumers are settled and set at rest by competent Civil Court, this forum cannot sit upon such concluded judgment and act like an appellate court to scrutinize the correctness or other witness of the issue. Therefore, we hold that dispute between the parties have been finally settled by the judgment of the suit and the complainants cannot file these complaints to re-open it and to reagitate. Hence these complaints are liable to be dismissed with cost. Hence, point No.1 answered in the negative and pass the following order.

    O R D E R

    Complaints are dismissed.
    The original order shall be kept in complaint No.561/09 and the copies of the same shall be kept in the remaining complaint.
  • edited February 2010
    Date 17th February 2010
    From.
    Ms. Shakuntala R
    M.N. Technical Institute.
    Kammagondana Halli,
    Jalahalli west, Abbigere Main Road,
    Bangalore – 560 015.

    To,
    The Manager,
    State Bank India,
    Jalahalli Service Station
    Gokula Branch,
    Bangalore - 560 013.

    Dear Sir,
    Sub: Amount not received at ATM Counter
    Ref: SB A/c No 64020975477 of SBM HMT Ind. Est. Branch
    ATM Card No 5046454002800027596 of SBM HMT. Ind. Est. Branch
    With reference to the above, I would like to inform you that on 16/02/2010 at 10.10AM I had operated ATM Debit card at SBI ATM Counter
    at M/s Jalahalli Service Station Gokula for Rs.10,000/- (Ten Thousand only)
    I did not receive the money nor any account slip due to some online problem throughout Bangalore.
    Today when I enquired my bank SBM Hmt. Ind. Est. Branch found that Rs.10,000/- has been deducted from my SB A/c No 64020975477 during yesterdays (16/02/2010) operation for which I did not receive any money.
    So please kindly credit that Rs. 10,000/- immediately to my
    SB A/c No 64020975477 of SBM HMT Ind. Est. Branch.

    Hope you do the needful and oblige.



    Thanking You, Yours faithfully,
    Date 17th February 2010
    From.
    Ms. Shakuntala R
    M.N. Technical Institute.
    Kammagondana Halli,
    Jalahalli west, Abbigere Main Road,
    Bangalore – 560 015.

    To,
    The Manager,
    State Bank Mysore Bank,
    HMT Indl. Estate, Jalahalli Branch,
    Bangalore - 560 031.

    Dear Sir,
    Sub: Amount not received at ATM Counter
    Ref: SB A/c No 64020975477 of SBM HMT Ind. Est. Branch
    ATM Card No 5046454002800027596 of SBM HMT. Ind. Est. Branch
    With reference to the above, I would like to inform to that on 16/02/2010 at 10.10AM I had operated ATM Debit card at SBI at
    M/s Jalahalli Service Station Gokula for Rs.10,000/- (Ten Thousand only) I did not receive the money nor any account slip due to some online problem throughout Bangalore.
    Today when I enquired my bank SBM Hmt. Ind. Est. Branch found that Rs.10,000/- has been deducted from my SB A/c No64020975477 during yesterdays (16/02/2010) operation for which I did not receive any money.
    So please kindly credit that Rs. 10,000/- immediately to my SB A/c No 64020975477 of SBM HMT Ind. Est. Branch.

    Hope you do the needful and oblige.



    Thanking You, Yours faithfully,
  • adv.singhadv.singh Senior Member
    edited February 2010
    COMPLAINT NO.2446 OF 2009

    Dr.B.Keshavan,

    No.11, 2nd Main Road,

    Jayamahal Extension

    Bangalore – 560 046.

    …. Complainant.

    V/s

    01. The Managing Director,

    State Bank of Mysore,

    Head Quarters, Mysore Bank Circle,

    K.G.Road, Bangalore – 560 009.

    02. Senior Manager,

    State Bank of Mysore,

    Madhavanagar Branch,

    Bangalore – 560 001.

    …. Opposite Parties

    -: ORDER:-

    This complaint is filed claiming compensation of Rs.25,000/- from the Opposite Party on the following grounds:-

    2. Miss. K.Silpa the daughter of the complainant had got admission to M.Sc. Decree course in Finance at the Liverpool University, U.K., on 09/06/2009 and therefore she sent the application for VISA to UK along with all original documents regarding her qualifications, Bank financial statements for maintenance and VISA fee of Rs.12,617/- on 30/07/2009. With regard to her educational qualifications she got 30/30 points awarded by the UK Border Agency, Chennai, the authority for issuing VISA to UK. She had submitted two bank statements one from State Bank of Mysore, Madhava Nagar Branch for Rs.5,92,067=96 and the other from Canara Bank, Nandidurga Road Branch for Rs.8,61,061=00 after depositing the funds in those banks in support of her maintenance in UK to get VISA for her higher studies. The Bank statement issued by the Canara Bank was accepted by the VISA issuing agency, but the Bank statement issued by State Bank of Mysore was rejected as it does not contain the date of issue. As a result of mistake committed by the State Bank she got 0/10 points for maintenance under appendix - ”C" of the immigration rules and her VISA was totally rejected. Due to refusal of VISA she lost not only VISA fee of Rs.12,670/- but also suffered mental agony. After noticing the mistake committed by State Bank of Mysore, the entire sum of Rs.5,92,067=60 piase deposited for the purpose of VISA was withdrawn and deposited at Canara Bank, Nandidurga Road Branch and fresh VISA application was submitted along with new Canara Bank statement for about Rs.14,60,000/- and VISA fee of Rs.12,650/- was paid. After facing mental agony for two months, she got the VISA on 15/09/2009 and joined M.Sc Decree course at Liverpool University, U.K. Due to the mistake of not mentioning the date of issue in the Bank statement, she lost not only the VISA fee of Rs.12,670/- but also due to the delay in getting VISA she had to spend extra for flight tickets, railway fares, taxi fares at Birmingham and Liverpool in UK to reach the University campus on her own apart from suffering mental agony. Hence, the complaint.

    3. In the version the contention of the Opposite Parties is as under:-

    The complaint has been filed not by the Account Holder but by the complainant, who represents to be the Father of the Account Holder, therefore the complainant has no locus-standi to agitate upon the issue and as such the complaint is liable to be dismissed. The complainant who has approached this Forum without any locus-standi has also not approached this Forum with clean hands in as much as he has not come up with the true facts but has misrepresented with the sole intention of drawing sympathy and causing embarrassment to the Opposite Party. The statements in Para-1 of the complaint are not within the knowledge of the Opposite Parties. There exist no relationship between the complainant and the Bank with regard to the present issue. Miss. K.Slipa who held the account with Opposite Party sought for a certificate indicating the amounts held by her in the said account by calling over phone and without submitting any written request indicating the manner in which she needed a certificate. The Opposite Parties obliged and issued the certificate indicating the amount held by her in her accounts highlighting the date on which such amounts were available in her credit. The dates on which the certain balance was available has been indicated and highlighted at two places and as such the question of leveling an allegation that the date was not mentioned is far fetched and does not hold any water. The certificate which was sought was a confirmation of availability of the funds as on a certain date which has been mentioned twice in the certificate. As such the question of any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties does not arise. The so called notice of the Immigration Authorities reveals the reasons that the letter from the SBM is not dated – not in line with the requirements of the published guidance, hence these funds not considered. The statement clearly states that the certificate ought to be in a certain format/guidance published by the Immigration Authorities. Therefore, Miss. Slipa who sought for a certificate orally ought to have sought the certificate through written request and should have furnished the format and the guidelines as per which the certificate was required. Since this requirement was not complied with by the seeker of the certificate, it is unfair to level allegations on the Opposite Parties who are very reputed Bank having their own name and fame serving the public at large. There was absolutely no fault nor deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Parties. Therefore the complaint is not maintainable. The individual ought to have been careful and taken requisite precautions. Had the individual sought a certificate in writing clearly indicating the manner in which the same was required and if in spite of it, the Opposite Parties had faulted they could have been questioned. The person who has filed the complaint has nothing to do with the accounts held by the Account Holder and therefore the complaint is totally baseless and deserves to be dismissed.



    4. The complainant has filed rejoinder to the version reiterating the statements in the complaint and further contending that no rules are enacted by the State Bank of Mysore that the complaint must be filed by the Account Holder only.

    5. In support of the respective contentions, both parties have filed affidavits and have produced copies of documents.

    6. The points for consideration are:-
    1. Whether the complainant is a Consumer as defined U/s 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act.

    2. Whether the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Parties?

    3. Whether the complainant entitled to the relief prayed for in the complaint?

    7. Our findings are:-

    Point No.(1) : In the Negative

    Point No.(2) & (3) : Does not survive

    -:REASONS:-

    Point No(1):-

    8. On the own admission of the complainant, it was his daughter Miss. Silpa who had her account with the Opposite Party State Bank of Mysore, she had deposited the funds for the purpose of obtaining the certificate and she requested the Bank to issue the certificate regarding the funds available in her account as the same was required for the purpose of obtaining VISA. From the copies of statement of accounts produced by the Opposite Party it is clear that Miss. Silpa – the daughter of the complainant had opened those accounts and was operating the accounts with the Opposite Party. If at all the certificate issued by the Opposite Party was not in accordance with the guidance of the VISA issuing Authority, the aggrieved person is Miss. K.Silpa – the daughter of the complainant and not the complainant himself. It is not the case of the complainant that he had applied to the Opposite Party Bank on behalf of his daughter requesting for issuance of certificate regarding the funds available in the account of his daughter. When the complainant is not the Account Holder in the Opposite Party Bank when he had not applied for issuance of certificate and when the certificate regarding the availability of funds was not required for his purpose the question of the complainant availing the services of the Opposite Party for consideration does not arise. Though the complaint is filed by the Father, no authority is obtained for that purpose from the Daughter. As such the complainant being not a Consumer is not entitled to file the complaint without any authority on behalf of his daughter or with regard to the grievance of his Daughter. Therefore, being not a Consumer the complainant is not entitled to any relief and as such the complaint itself is not maintainable. As such we answer the point No.1 in the NEGATIVE and hold that the complainant is not a Consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act. To file the complaint on behalf of his daughter it was necessary for the complainant to obtain the authority such as Power of Attorney from his Daughter. No such letter of authority is produced by the complainant. Therefore the complaint filed without authority with regard to the grievance of the Daughter is not maintainable. On this ground alone the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

    9. Even otherwise the sole grievance made out by the complainant is that in the certificate issued by the Opposite Party Bank with regard to availability of funds on a particular date in the account of his Daughter, the date was not mentioned and therefore the VISA issuing authority did not consider the amount available in the account of his Daughter in the State Bank of Mysore. The complainant has produced the certificate issued by the Opposite Party. No doubt in this certificate the date on which the certificate was issued is not mentioned. But the date on which the particular amount was available in the account of the Daughter of the complainant is clearly mentioned at two places. In the notice of Immigration decision dated 17/08/2009 the reason for refusal of the VISA is mentioned as under:-

    “the letter from the SBM is not dated – not in line with the requirements of the published guidance, hence these funds are not considered”.



    From the above reasons mentioned by the VISA issuing Authority it is clear that the letter from the Bank was required to be issued in accordance with the published guidance. It is not the case of the complainant that the Bank was appraised of the requirements with regard to the contents of the certificate in line with the published guidelines of the VISA issuing Authorities and in spite of it the Bank committed mistake by not mentioning the date of issue of the certificate. The fact that no written request was given to the Bank for issue of the certificate is admitted by the complainant. If that is so, when the Bank was not apprise of the requirements of the VISA issuing Authority, the complainant cannot allege deficiency in service on the part of the Bank in not mentioning the date of issue of the certificate. On this ground also the complainant becomes not entitled to claim compensation from the Opposite Parties. In view of the fact that the complaint itself is not filed by competent person, the same is liable to be dismissed. In the result, we pass the following:-

    -:ORDER:-

    1. The complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs.

    2. Send a copy of this order to both parties free of costs, immediately.

    3. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 29th Day of JANUARY 2010.
  • edited October 2011
    Hi sir/madam
    Myself Premalatha.N,having my account in State Bank of Mysore, Bhadravathi branch account number 64051892368.Today evening i draw 400 ammount from my account in kotak ATM near hanumanth nagar,Bangalore, the transaction ws on process the system switched off,and i dint get money as well as receipt.. I had called to Kotak customer service they told me to approach you.could i information about refund...
  • edited October 2011
    from ,
    Premalatha.N,
    D/o narayana murthy,
    lower hutta,
    janata house,
    Bhadravathi.
    Ph. No. :7411640465
    Email: knp.prema@gmail.com

    Hi Sir/Madam,
    Myself Premalatha.N, having my SBM account in Bhadravathi branch.Account number is 64051892368. Today evening i withdraw ammount 400/- from my account in KOtak bank ATM .But i dint get money as well as receipt.I had called to Kotak custemer service they told me approach you.So when i will get refund? could i get information about this....
  • nrnravinrnravi Junior Member
    edited November 2011
    Hi Sir ,

    My name is Ravi , I am applying for US Universities for Master's program . Hence I wanted a solvency certificate so that I can show universities that I have capability to fund my education .
    Today I approached SBI bank Electronic city . The bank staff was not very friendly and was not able to co-operate with me . Finally I was able to contact some one and the person informed he will give only the solvency against my bank balance and not by property ....I am from a middle class family I don't have 30 lakhs in my account to show . So hence I wanted solvency against my property , But the bank staff are saying no we can't give .....upon getting admission I am taking education loan that's how I am planning for Masters .

    But the bank is spoiling my future , without the solvency I will not be able to apply for any of the universities . why these nationalised bank are not understanding . why can't the middle class student can't apply to the universities even if I have some property to prove that I can afford the education

    Please some one help me regarding this as I am short of time . I need to apply to the universities .

    Regards,
    Ravi Narayana
    9738889954
    nrnravi@gmail.com
  • M NAGABHUSHANAMM NAGABHUSHANAM Junior Member
    edited November 2011
    Dear sir,

    i wish to put some words in front of you for rectification and help the public,

    i am belonging to channagiri town , dawangiri dist, karnataka state,

    our town is having two nationalized banks, one is state bank of mysore,and another is canara bank,sbm had 2 atm's and canarabank no atm. Genarally all the account holders used to sbm atms only, recently since last month the sbm authorities stopped the acceptance of other bank atm card user transactions, the public are suffring like anything. Because we are not having any atm up to 42 km's. Yester day my couligue is under very serios and want to admit in the hospital we tried for withdrawel from atm but we failed, we are having thousend of rupees in our accounts, but what is the use?, as a humanbeing i struggled like any thing last day and bringing the issue to your forum. Being an employees we are not having time(as per rules) to went the bank and withdraw the salary, we depends on atm's only.
    Hence iam requesting you goodselves to please treat and accept this letter as complaint and give the justice for our channagiri public.


    Thanking you sir,


    m.nagabhushanam.m,
    programmer,
    l.i.c of india,
    channagiri.

    Cell:09483891080
  • edited July 2012
    sir,can you please tell me is their any account holder by name B.S.Veda kumar
  • edited November 2012
    The Branch Manager Behaves very rudely with the common people coming there for doubts......i am one of the vicitim.I went to make request to the branch manger as my mother is paralysed she cannot come over there if one of the bank person come over there he not only behaved rudely & told that what can i do for that if you want the life certificate she should come....

    Let me tell you the fact i have one of the bank account in ICICI there behaviour is very good .....worst behaviour in SBI...
  • edited February 2013
    To Date: 15/02/2013
    The Managing Director
    State Bank of Mysore
    Head office - Bangalore
    Dear Sir,
    Sub: Complaint against Mr A. Karunanthi, General Manager, Network-I Bangalore Zone.
    2.Complaint on Mr K.B.Somashekera, Chief Manager, Zone- I, Bangalore Zone{Complaint on Bad Maintenance of House [SHA Accommodation] -House was leased to the Bank for the occupation of Mr.D. Venkatesh, Deputy Manager, Currency Management Branch. Our house: #230/4, 1st ‘A’ Main, 12th ‘B’ cross, West of chord road Layout 2nd stage, Mahalakshmipuram Bangalore-560086. }
    This is to inform that today in the afternoon I went to meet Mr Karunanthi General Manager Network –I, Bangalore. I have introduced myself and said that I would like to know the position my complaints. He said that I have seen it; Mr Venkatesh is not well I have to ascertain the genuine of the complaint. I have told him that it is common that many get admit to hospitals during transfer season; for that he said that, I know Mr Venkatesh since many years he is hard worker.[ In fact Mr Vekatesh was on Goa Tour for a week or so till 31st Jan 2013]

    Again, I informed him that two officials have already inspected the house, further I said that Instead of officers the Visit of the Engineers would have been better. On this occasion he started shouting at me very rudely and bounced on me in an ill manner, I know your history, I have collected your history and said l have allowed you without appointment, you go and see in the Head office any other General Managers will allow any body without appointments, you have crossed to the limit to suggest me. And repeated that, “I have allowed without appointment, you go and see any other General Manager will allow like this, in Head office repeatedly told same thing
    I have not revealed that I have already met the General Manager [0] in fact he allowed me to talk to him without appointment; he in fact assured that he will look into it. Before that I had been to MD secretariat, they were also very courteous treated and later on I met DGM [HR} he was also very courteously talked to me. And advised me to go and see DGM Bangalore Zone. Here my suggestion was only to mean “the Engineer can assess the damage than an Administrative officer” and nothing else, “He repeatedly told three times that in the Head office no General Managers will allow anybody without appointment, I have allowed, you have crossed the limit of suggestion.
    1. Here he was very rudely shouted at me in ill manner.it is a misbehavior and uncivilized act.
    2. I know your history, I have collected your history, and this is very bad and below the dignity and decorum of the General Manager of the prestigious Bank. I don’t know what history he has got collected on me, on this occasion I myself give the history of mine, in a separate sheet and enclose for reference. I suffered in the Bank because I am always maintained, “YES for YES” “ NO for NO” and nowhere on whatever difficulties I did not agreed No for “YES and Yes for NO”
    3. I have allowed you without appointment; see no body in Head office allow any one without appointment. It is disrespect to his own colleagues
    4. He repeated the same thrice no bodies in Head office allow any one without appointment. This is disrespect to his own colleges and disowning his colleagues, it also means that all others are bad. Except himself. Here repeating anything is nothing but guilty in non-discharging the work in time.
    5. My suggestion was only to mean that “the Engineer can assess the damage than an Administrative officer”, Sending an officer & later an engineer’s will take lot of time. But “He repeatedly said that in Head office no General Managers will allow anybody without appointment and said I have allowed, you have crossed the limit of suggestion. An executive who cannot take suggestion cannot discharge the duties efficiently. He must welcome suggestion, should not refuse suggestions from any corners and even must welcome from strangers also.[ His statement is ridiculous and stupid] If this is not followed the administration will collapse.
    6. The Bank is social and service organization and cannot declare that “one should come with appointment only”. When Bank has provided so many facilities to the executives and so many disintegration and division of allotment of duties are there the work should not kept pending.
    Sir, all the above are all miss manners, misbehavior & most uncivilized attitude of the official; it has to be dealt as per Bank norms.

    Further, Sir, I have submitted my letter of request for inspection of house, first on February 1, 2013, and details with photographs on February 9th, 2013, and February 15, 2013 came to the office to know the position, by this time already 15 days lapsed, hence I request your good selves to pay monthly rent of Rs.30000/-[Rs.Thirty thousand only] till the date of settlement.



    Yours faithfully


    [D.R.Suresh] P/A Holder
    And husband of Smt Gayathri Suresh.

    .
    History of mine, Sri D.R.Suresh: submit to your good selves, I am forced to submit this because Mr A. Karunanthi, General Manager made me to submit, because of his ridiculous statement; what I said is true to my knowledge and belief.
    My Qualification, MA, Dip in Personnel Management and Industrial relations.obtained proficiency certificate on Personnel Management and behavioral science, from Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore.
    I joined the Bank as Temporary employee on 01/03/1972., worked at Head office, resources development Department, Brach expansion Department from 01/03/1972 to 23/04/1974 continuously with a break on one day after every 90 days.
    From 24/04/1974 joined permanent Job at our Shimoga Brach. During Emergency I have availed one day leave, for which Branch Manager, wanted to issue a memo, the letter was signed, numbered and written in issue book but could not issue because the leave was availed for family planning purpose, it was known to Branch Manager earlier also but wanted to issue, I had clearly written the reason for availing the leave in the leave letter because I did not seek apology for having availed the leave he wanted to issue me the memo.
    Later on in year 1983 when I was working at Regional office one Mr N. L Satyanarayana was giving disposal to the letters after much delay, but after his disposal he was putting the date of disposal as the next day of my submission date, and was blaming that I had kept pending. Once he was on long leave, on his reporting to duty he gave disposal to many pending letters but as usual he subscribed the date of disposal / approval as next date of my submission date. So I took all letters to GM[o] and concerned AGM and brought to their notice. This has made lot of hue and cry.
    In the year 1993 November I was transferred to Delhi, I didn’t approached for cancellation of transfer instead I went to Delhi with family and aged parents, my son was studying at 8th standard at that time, so on that occasion the then CGM has said that “he didn’t come for cancellation of transfer,” [He has insulted me] I have not insulted him In fact I obeyed his orders.
    At Delhi one of the Manger use to book Taxi with the reason inspection from morning to night on all days when there was Program in Delhi Kannada koota.Date of taxi booking and Programs date tallies. I was not involving with him any other thing. In my life all the corrupt officers put me out, did not liked me, and passed on information to next incumbents.
    When I was at Connaught place soon after reporting at Connaught place Branch, I saw one Government account drawing self cheque for large amount, I told them you are not eligible to draw the money, the bearer of the cheque said that I have been doing so since several years, who are you to say like so, CM said that you must pass, Mr Dube said that with a much difficulty we have brought this account, Mr Haravinder said that once a bearer is always bearer. I have told them all that though account style is ok, the cheque has been issued to the account, and cheque is a bearer cheque he is not supposed to draw the amount. Finally Mr Harvinder singh passed the cheque. Whereas a letter has been sent against me stating that, so and so officer is ill-treating our customer. But on third day CBI has arrived to the bank and seized the accounts and paid instrument and account is closed without my knowledge. The account was Family planning Department Some doctors were drawing the amounts.
    Mr Manmohan singh [ Manager] and Mr K.P Swamy [CM] personally called me and told me that, you are good at all works and said if you do some work, what that we say “ we will help you financially” I did not accepted there offer, though I worked at Connaught place for more than three years. I have not prepared not even single charges vouchers. In my life all the corrupt officers put me out, did not liked me, and passed on information to next incumbents.

    When I was at Connaught place soon after reporting at Connaught place Branch, I saw one Government account drawing self cheque for large amount, I told them you are not eligible to draw the money, the bearer of the cheque said that I have been doing so since several years, who are you to say like so, CM said that you must pass, Mr Dube said that with a much difficulty we have brought this account, Mr Haravinder said that once a bearer is always bearer. I have told them all that though account style is ok, the cheque has been issued to the account, and cheque is a bearer cheque he is not supposed to draw the amount. Finally Mr Harvinder singh passed the cheque. Whereas a letter has been sent against me stating that, so and so officer is ill-treating our customer. But on third day CBI has arrived to the bank and seized the accounts and paid instrument and account is closed without my knowledge.
    Mr Manmohan singh [ Manager]and Mr K.P Swamy [CM] personally called me and told me that, you are good at all works and said if you do some work, what that we say “ we will help you financially” I did not accepted there offer, though I worked at Connaught place for more than three years. I have not prepared not even single charges vouchers. In my life all the corrupt officers put me out, did not liked me, and passed on information to next incumbents.

    In year 1998 December I was posted to Sri Chamundeswari Sugar, K.M Doddy as special officer to be stationed at factory site. I was also asked to take over K M Doddy Brach Advances department, but I asked them to put an office order take charge of the department, which they could not do. I asked for office order because the documentation position was bad. As factory was not cooperating, seen diversion of funds, factory had stale machineries and frequent strikes in the factory I recommended for call back of advances hence I was transferred to Aghalaya Branch.
    At Aghalaya Branch, the then DGM [ Rama Mohana Rao]use to visit my branch some time more than four times in a month, he use to praise me that you are good worker, good at advances etc., etc. One day I did not accepted his recommendations, when there was too much of force I said that “yes I am good at advances but I give only recoverable loans, so he was angry. Later on my branch use to have frequent unofficial audits, to find fault with me they could not trace fault in my accounts even after 8 to ten times unofficial audits.. They later posted two fraudulent staff to the branch which was not actually required; already I had two problematic staff in the branch. However I maintained all the four and no frauds took place during my tenure in the Branch. But soon after my living the Branch the frauds taken place by same staffs.
    I was charge sheeted on many other grounds, all did not stand except, a one charge where I have written direct letter to MD and I was severally punished. The letter was a reply to the MD’s Do letters. This would not have been happened if had taken care of Mr Karigirivasan & Mr Bardale[CGM] in time. Mr Bardale, excused many hardcore frauds and restored several increments to many whereas for me he punished.
    My branch was a profit branch despite heavily load of staff to the branch, less advances and less Deposit, This has not been recognized.
    I was ill-treated on several occasions including in the promotional interviews, at once I have written a letter to MD on the Chairmen of the Interview committee that the DGM and the chairmen of the interview committee doesn’t know the Interview manners.
    When I was at Aghalaya Branch the then Regional Manager has told me that, you are good at work, your works are excellent but if you could adjust with us you will be in in comfortable position.






    To Date: 09/02/2013
    The Managing Director
    State Bank of Mysore
    Head office - Bangalore
    Dear Sir,
    Complaint on Mr.K.B.Somashekera, Chief Manager, Zone- I, Bangalore Zone{Complaint on Bad Maintenance of House [SHA Accommodation] -House was leased to the Bank for the occupation of MrD. Venkatesh, Deputy Manager, Currency Management Branch. Our house: #230/4, 1st ‘A’ Main, 12th ‘B’ cross, West of chord road Layout 2nd stage, Mahalakshmipuram Bangalore-560086. }
    This is to inform that the above official by Name Somashekera the chief Manager working at Zonal office I, Bangalore Zone, he don’t know how to discharge his duties, how to behave in a right Manner and an uncivilized officer of the Bank. I shocked to observe his rude & uncivilized behavior, when I represented the facts of my house position which was given on lease to the Bank for the occupation of Mr. D. Venkatesh, Deputy Manager, Currency Management Branch. In this regard I request your good selves to see my latter dated 01/02/2013 & letter dated 09/02/2013, which is enclosed.
    Following are counts which are treated as misbehavior of Mr. Somashekara, which requires to be looked with special attentions at the Management level in the interest of the Institution.

    1. He kept pending my letter dated 01/02/2013 without any decision with a reason that Law officer opinion is required for disposal of the matter, stated to me that the Law officer is on leave, when I was suggested that plenty of Law officers are available in the Bank as well as Bank approved law officers; for that he not only said that we have a allotted Law officer he must come and very rudely said that you are not the authorized person to suggest. [This has to be considered as Fist count of misbehavior]
    2. I have told him that no papers should be kept pending, a disposal must be given immediately, he told me that I have to hear what my DGM says, very rudely said that you have no authority to suggest any thing[ This must be treated as 2nd count of misbehavior]
    3. I have suggested him that as soon as receipt of complaints, the matter should have been referred to Estate Department with an instruction to inspect the house and report, he told me very rudely that you have no authority to suggest any thing, and said that, I have instruction from my DGM to keep pending till the Law officer reports for duty. [Here there are two counts of misbehaviors i.e. one you have no authority to suggest and another is DGM has instructed to keep pending till the law officer reports for duty.] This must be treated as 3rd & 4th counts of misbehavior.
    4. Further I have suggested that, good things in the interest of the Bank, even though I am not an authorized person; if it is a positive guidance you may have to consider it, even if suggestion is from strangers, even for that he said very rudely “that you are not an authorized person suggest any thing”.[ I request this misbehavior must be consider as 5th count of misbehavior].
    5. I have met Mr somashekera several time in the last week, he in fact first time contacted me on 02/02/2013 over phone on submission of complaint against Mr. Venkatesh,
    Yesterday i.e. on 09/02/2013; Mr Somashekara telling me he is not a concerned officer in the matter to deal with it. [As it is not correct on his part to escape, from the fact of delay in dealing the matter] This must be considering as 6th count of misbehavior
    .

    I request your good selves to go through my earlier letter dated 01/02/2013, & letter dated 09/02/2013 and appropriate action must take in the matter. However the above said letters appended below for immediate reference.

    Yoursfaithfully

    D.R.Suresh
    On behalf of my wife Smt Gayathri Suresh,
    Land lady of the house.
    #Gokulam Apartments,B1-1101- Sri Sreekanteeshwara krupaIndia Heritage Foundation, Kanakapura Road, Bangalore-560062

    Letter dated 01/02/2013
    The Deputy General Manager 01/02/2013
    State Bank of Mysore
    Zonal office- Bangalore Zone-I
    BKG complex, Bangalore

    Dear Sir

    Complaint on Bad Maintenance of House [SHA Accommodation] -House was leased to the Bank for the occupation of D. Venkatesh, Deputy Manager, Currency Management Branch

    Please refer to your letter vide reference DGM/BZ-I/ SHA/2012-13 dated 22nd January 2013., accordingly, Sri D.Venkatesh Dy Manager, Currency Management branch Bangalore vacated the house on 31/01/2013 , I thank the Bank for the Kind gesture.

    We have asked to vacate the house prematurely because of bad Maintenance of house and more than 3 families was housed in the same house, .The house was severally defaced and looking ugly. we want Somebody to be deputed from your office for inspections immediately [within *8days], or otherwise we will obtain the estimate for repainting of house, toilet cleaning and other damages, such as damage done to glasses, wood work, gates repairs, replacement door locks etc. While handing over possession of the house, he did not handed over the full keys and abruptly walked out saying that keys have been kept there. We request, your good selves to give some time to submit the estimate cost of repair and paintings of the house.


    The house required immediate paintings & repairs, hence submitted the request and matter is very urgent.
    Kindly look into this complaint and order may be passed appropriately.

    Yoursfaithfully

    D.R.Suresh
  • edited February 2013
    The Deputy General Manager Date: 25/02/2013
    State Bank of Mysore
    Bangalore Zone-I - Bangalore
    Dear Sir,
    Complaint on Mr.K.B.Somashekera, Chief Manager, Zone- I, Bangalore Zone{Complaint on Bad Maintenance of House [SHA Accommodation] -House was leased to the Bank for the occupation of MrD. Venkatesh, Deputy Manager, Currency Management Branch. Our house: #230/4, 1st ‘A’ Main, 12th ‘B’ cross, West of chord road Layout 2nd stage, Mahalakshmipuram Bangalore-560086. }
    It is very surprising and have I have to appreciate your wonderful mechanized decision take on the above subject and conveyed to me by your letter vide reference Ref: BZ-1/ DGM/DPD/Complaints/GM/ [HR&GA} dated 16/02/2013 And it was also endorsed by the GM [O} blindly without application of his sense mind., “IT LAC ETHICKS & MORALITY” of your office, yourself and top Executives of prestigious institution STATE BANK OF MYSORE.
    Actually it is not natural detritions as stated by you and your reporting officials it is highly bad maintenance of premises, over loading of in mates of the house, more than THREE families staying in a house and baking of many items & innumerable meats in the house. I have sent you 25 photographs in support of the Bad Maintenances, despite the fact if you would say so it is nothing but LAC OF ETHICKS & MORALITY in the wonderful mechanized decision of your office. Do you think under the shade of Clause 4 of agreement “you Monsters” can do whatever you want to the house and can overrule the payment for repairs and BAD MAINTENANCE OF THE HOUSE? If in case no proper decision has not been taken, in the matter with in three days from the date of this letter, I may have to file a police complaint against the Bank as well as to Shi Venkatesh. [If I filed it is an embracement to the Top Executives.]
    Apart from the Bad Maintained of the house, there are many aspects which I have reported in my letter dated 09/02/2013, which have not been attended and very much keeping quite: such as 1. Front three gates not kept in working condition, 2. Wooden shoe rack broken, 3. Two taps changed, 4. Windows wooden beadings have been removed, 5.Three glasses broken, 6. Too many nails nailed on the walls, everywhere and on wall tiles, 7. None of the bath room showers is in working condition, 8.pest control not at all used in the house.9. Water level controller was not in working condition, 10. Main door Godrej lock, only one key handed over out of three 11. Many electric bulbs are missing, 12. None of the wardrobes keys and drawer’s keys not handed over.13. All the four toilets not at all cleaned, it looks like public toilets, 14. Again Second floor Door lock only two keys handed over out of three keys, none of the marble floors have been cleaned.15. Water bill of Rs.243/- & electricity bill of Rs.677/- date of reading 03/02/2013 & 11/02/2013 respectively not paid despite advice.
    And, he has agreed to pay Rs.6000/-[Rupees Six thousand] extra rent w.e.f. from November 2011, in addition to Rs.15000/- he had paid for the month of November and December 2012, but not paid for the month of January 2013 and deceived.
    And you have neither applied your mind nor understood the clause 9 of the agreement, which actually says that the lessee shall during the continuance of the tenancy keep the demised premises and fixtures and paints and decorations thereof in good tenable repair and good condition subject to natural deteriorations. Your officers who have actually seen the house, they know perfectly that it is a bad maintenance only and not natural deteriorations, but reported as natural deteriorations, either they have reported purposely or they have lack of knowledge about cleanliness, good maintenance or they may also maintaining their house in a similar condition. For your live Example the Chief Manager Sri K.B. Somashekera was also maintained his SHA accommodation in a similar fashion and the land lord has to file a police complaint to recover the charges.
    And again, clause 10 of the agreements, keeping others family, sister’s family, brother family and their working and earning members for monetary benefits and profits is equivalent to Sublease and nothing else [this one sentence I wanted to avoid, since beginning, but unfortunately I have to spell out because of heavy damages to the house and not coming forward to settle the issue. He has rented out his two houses also for rent]
    With regard to Shri K.B.Somashekera, What I have said earlier in my letter dated 09/02/2013 is true and facts, I don’t know how? you have accepted his denial and how you being an Executive asked him to keep pending my letter dated 01/02/2013 for arrival of Law officer from his leave period. It is more ridiculous, stupid and shameful. I have not said anything about Mr Venkatesh, despite his worst maintenance of house, why unnecessarily I have to complaint on Mr Somashekera if he has not misbehaved, please think and refer my letter dated 09/0/22013. I have reported what he has said to me and it is a fact.
    I demand for reimbursement of repairs charges and painting charges, replacement of locks & cleaning charges, it can be reimbursement or get it done with your own contractors immediately and demand rent @ Rs.30000/-[ Rupees thirty thousand only] till the date of settlement w.e.f. 01/02/2013
    Thanking you with anticipation of your quick decision.
    Yours faithfully

    [ D.R.Suresh]
    PA holder & on behalf of My Wife Smt Gayathri Suresh
    Land lady of the house.
    Copy to the Managing Director, SBM
    Copy to the General Manager[o], SBM
    And copy to the Chief General Manager, SBM, for information and Quick actions.
  • edited June 2013
    Dear Sir,

    This is second time i am requesting you, please suggest me how to cancel me education loan interest,Sir aug 2010 i got 30000/- loan from sbm but that amount interest is more than 80000/- for 2 year. now only i got job for 9000/- PM. is there any chance to cancel at least 2 year interest, please suggest me.

    Thanks & Regards
    Mahesh H.S
  • edited September 2013
    respected sir,
    i am velu m, i am studying in B.E in 2nd year in king college of technology nallur namkkal tamilnadu. i will apply for educational loan in previous year in state bank of mysore anchetty branch, but no response in the manager. i am not concentrate in my study, because i go to bank for my loan purpose ,and soon all clear in my first year results , so please loan help for you...!
    please immeditly arrange the educational loan for you sir...!
    my details:
    velu m s/o manickam,
    4/253,ramarkovil village,
    Anchetty post,
    denkanikottai taluk,
    krishnagiri dist,
    pin: 635102,
    cell: 08344192143,

    my college address:
    king college of technology,
    nallur,namakkal dist.
    tamilnadu
    thanking you!
  • edited January 2014
    Actually My Daughter has got BSc Nursing 4 years course admission in melmaruvathur adhiparasakthi college of nursing through Government Medical college counselling with merit. So I went to State Bank of Mysore Whites road Branch in Mount road for Education loan. They given education loan form and told to attach required document. So I have filled application and attached the relevant documents then given to the Bank. But after one month they have rejected my application. So again I went to Bank and asked them rejection reason. They are telling me to try near the branch Where I am staying. I don't know why they are telling like this. As for as government notification I can get education loan any were in India. Are Else please guide me.


    Thanking You.
    Ramadass.
  • edited June 2014
    Dear sir,
    i am customer of hdfc bank katol dist. Nagpur
    my current account no is 21262000000608
    1] during the month of oct. 2013 credit card no. 4854 9900 0052 0198 was issued to me.
    2] it was never activated by me, but bank official deducted my electricity bill by updating at their end.
    3] during the month of dec.2013 helth insurence was booked and the premium was deducted through credidit card instead of current account as mentioned as above.
    4] sdubsequently the credit card blocked by me and application foe close down it. In writing as well as on line.
    5] the helth issurence policy was also closed down.
    6] but after closing my credit card, there is deduction in every months amounting rs 4538.78.
    And also impossing the penaly etc.
    7] kindly refund the amounts of deducted from my current accounts towards on credit card and premium of health insurance.

    Thanking you.

    Madavi l k
    9405900010
  • edited August 2014
    Sir,
    I have lost my ATM Card No.5046454000100009173 Today morning while travelling by train
    My Account no is.54030699817 of state bank of Mysore, Nariman Point branch, Mumbai District.
    I kindly request you to block this Accounts ATM transaction till I request you further.


    Thanking you


    Nath Doiphode
    407 / B 3, Chandramukhi, Lok Surbhi Complex, Near Patri Pool, Kalyan -West, 421301
  • edited August 2014
    sir/mam..,
    I have lost my ATM Card, a week while travelling by train.
    My Account no is.64117350673 of state bank of Mysore, Davangere University branch (Branch code is 40869), Davangere district, Karnataka. i don't remember the ATM card number.
    I kindly request you to block this Accounts ATM transaction.


    Thanking you

    Thorankumar S,
    +91 9742480272
    AT/Post: Aremallapur,
    Ranibennur
    Haveri
Sign In or Register to comment.