BEFORE THE A.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

AT HYDERABAD.

F. A. 400/2010 against  C.C 20/2009, Dist. Forum, Warangal

Between:

Alla Linga Reddy

S/o. Raji Reddy, Age: 75 years

R/o. Motlapally Village

Mogullapally  Mandal

Warangal Dist.                                             ***                         Appellant/

                                                                                                Complainant

                                                                   And

1. Chief General Manager

State Bank of India

Head Office, Hyderabad.

2.  Regional  Manager

State Bank of India

Balasamudram, Hanumkonda

3.  Branch Manager

Mogullapally Branch

Warangal Dist.                                              ***                        Respondents/      

                                                                                                Ops.

Counsel for the Appellants:                         M/s.  V. Ravi  Kumar.

Counsel for the Resps:                                Admission Stage.

CORAM:  

     HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D. APPA RAO, PRESIDENT      

                                        SMT. M. SHREESHA, MEMBER

&

SRI R. L. NARASIMHA RAO, MEMBER

WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND TEN

Oral Order: (Per Hon’ble Justice D. Appa Rao, President)

                                                          *****

1)                Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and having perused the material on record, we are of the opinion that this matter can be disposed of at the stage of admission. 

2)                Unsuccessful complainant is the appellant.

3)                The case of the complainant in brief is that he deposited an amount of Rs. 40,000/- on 13.4.2004 towards Special Term Deposit (STD) to be matured on 14.10.2007.  When he made a request to pay the amount opposite party No. 3   Branch Manager refused to pay.  On that he issued registered lawyer notice and filed the complaint for recovery of the said amount together with compensation of Rs. 5,000/-.

4)                Opposite Party No. 3 filed counter resisting the case.  He alleged that the complainant was maintaining a  Saving Bank (S.B)  account with it.   The complainant  issued a withdrawal form on 13.4.2004 for Rs.  40,000/- on his S.B. account for transfer of funds to be kept in STD.     Accordingly, he   issued STD receipt on the said day.    However, due to rush of work and by oversight he could not debit the said amount from his S.B. account.    The STD receipt was issued without   receiving any consideration.      Taking advantage of this the complainant withdrew Rs. 20,000/- on 7.5.2004 and Rs. 30,000/- on 29.5.2004 evidenced from statement of account.    He requested the complainant to return back STD receipt.    The complainant promised to return the STD receipt but did not return.    When registered notice was issued he promptly gave a reply setting out the above facts.    Non-mention of reply in the complaint was deliberate.  The withdrawal form Dt. 13.4.2004 issued by the complainant  would undoubtedly show that the said form was for issuance of STD receipt.  It is not his case that cash was paid.    Therefore they need not pay the amount covered under the STD receipt and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

5)                The complainant in proof of his case filed his affidavit evidence and got Exs. A1 to A6 marked while the opposite party No. 3 filed his affidavit evidence and got Exs. B1 to B10 marked. 

6)                The Dist. Forum after considering the evidence placed on record opined that evidently the complainant issued withdrawal form for an amount of Rs. 40,000/- from his S.B. account and  received corresponding  STD receipt evidenced from Ex. B6.    Apart from it there is no other proof that the complainant had paid the amount under STD receipt.    Subsequently the complainant withdrew Rs. 20,000/- on 7.5.2004 and Rs. 30,000/- on 29.5.2004 vide Exs. B7 & B8.    The Dist. Forum observed that the complainant knowing full well that he did not pay for STD thus cheated the bank.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of the bank and accordingly dismissed the complaint. 

7)                Aggrieved by the said decision, the complainant preferred the appeal contending that Dist. Forum did not appreciate the facts in correct perspective.    It did not consider Exs. A1 to A6 in correct perspective.    The bank is bound to pay the amount covered under STD receipt and prayed that the appeal be allowed. 

8)                It is an undisputed fact that the complainant has been maintaining S.B. account with the respondent bank.    He himself submitted a withdrawal form Ex. B6 for Rs. 40,000/- in order to enable the bank to issue STD receipt Ex. A1.    Though evidently the respondent bank has issued Ex. A1 STD receipt a perusal of account copy shows that corresponding debit entry was not made.  It is not the case of the complainant that he had paid cash in lieu of his request to debit from his S.B. account in order to issue STD receipt.    Ex. A1 vis-à-vis Ex. B6 withdrawal form would undoubtedly show that the complainant had intended that an amount of Rs. 40,000/- to be deducted from his S.B. account in order to issue STD receipt.    The bank Manager swore on oath and stated that due to rush of work and by oversight debit entry was not made in his account.    The complainant obviously taking advantage of this within a month or 1-1/2 months he withdrew Rs. 20,000/- on 7.5.2004 and Rs. 30,000/- on  29.5.2004  vide Exs. B7 &  B8.   The  complainant  could  not

deny these facts in his affidavit evidence nor could show as to how he obtained Ex. A1 STD receipt but  for the authorization to the bank issued by him by way of withdrawal form to debit Rs. 40,000/- from his account.   When the respondent could prove by way of irrefutable documentary evidence  Exs. B1, B6 to B8  that  while issuing STD receipt they did not debit the amount by mistake and obviously the complainant had taken advantage of it,   and filed the complaint.      The complainant could not substantiate his plea that an amount of Rs. 40,000/- was paid separately for issuing STD receipt.    We do not see any mis-appreciation of facts by the Dist. Forum in this regard. 

9)                In the result the appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission.   No costs.   

1)      _______________________________

PRESIDENT                 

2)      ________________________________

 MEMBER           

3)      ________________________________

 MEMBER           

   Dt.  31. 03.  2010.

*pnr

“UP LOAD – O.K.”