th July 2009 C.C. No. 57 of 2009 C.C. No. 57 of 2009 C.C. No. 57 of 2009

5

while retaining the originals with her, which speaks volumes of her malafide

intentions of making an unlawful claim against the bank and with an intention of

preventing truth to come out. There is no deficiency of service on the part of R2 as

alleged by the complainant and the complaint is liable to be rejected.

5. R1 filed a memo adopted the counter of R2 in all material facts.

6. On the basis of the above pleadings the following points are settled for

determination.

i. Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief as prayed for?

ii. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the

respondents?

iii. To what relief?

7. On behalf of the complainant Ex. A1 to A4 were marked and on behalf of

the respondents Ex. B1 to B5 were marked. Oral arguments were heard from both

sides.

8. Point No. 1& 2 Ex. A1 is the Xerox copy of counterfoil receipt dt.

25-7-2007 for Rs. 50,000/- issued by Andhra Bank, Kadapa. Ex. A2 is the Xerox

copy of counter foil receipt dt. 6-10-2007 for Rs. 1,00,000/- issued by Andhra Bank,

Kadapa. Ex. A3 is the Xerox copy of FIR in Cr. No. 228/2007 of Chinnachowk Police

station, Kadapa. Ex. A4 is the Xerox copy of charge sheet in Cr. No. 228/2007 of

Kadapa I town police station. Ex. B1 is the original savings bank accounts pay in

slip dt. 6-10-2007 to the credit of S.B. A/c No. 21616 in the name of the

complainant for Rs. 1,00,000/-. Ex. B2 is the statement of account in the name of

the complainant from 01-6-2007 to 31-12-2007 maintained by the bank of R2. Ex.

B3 is the Xerox copy of 161 (3) Cr.P.C statement of the complainant recorded by the

police in Cr. No. 228/2007 of Kadapa I town police station. Ex. B4 is the reply notice

dt. 13-12-2007. Ex. B5 is the legal notice dt. 26-11-2007 of the complainant.

CONSUMER COMPLAINT No. 57 / 2009

Nakkala Jayamma, W/o Anjanaiah, age 47 years,

D.No. 2/305-4, Marutinagar, Kadapa City. ….. Complainant.

Vs.

1) The Chairman, Andhra Bank, Head Office,

Koti, Hyderabad.

2) The Branch Manager, Andhra Bank, 19/35,

Chennai Road, Kadapa city. ….. Respondents.

This complaint coming on this day for final hearing on 10-7-2009 in the

presence of Sri D. Reddaiah, Advocate for complainant a n d Sri A. Raja Reddy,

Advocate for R1 & R2 and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum

made the following:-

O R D E R

(Per Sri S. Abdul Khader Basha, Member),

1. Complaint filed under section 12 section of the C.P. Act 1986.

2. The brief facts of the complaint are as follows:- The complainant is the

resident of Marutinagar, Kadapa city. She is having S.B. Account with R2 branch at

Kadapa. The complainant used to receive amounts regularly from Gulf countries as

her relations are staying there. She is to maintain the account with the respondent

properly. On 25-7-2007 she deposited a sum of Rs. 50,000/- and on 6-10-2007 she

deposited Rs. 1,00,000/- on two occasions. There were receipts issued by R2. Both

the receipts issued by the respondents. The complainant believed that the same is

entered into the records or registers of the respondents’ bank also. Later the

complainant came to know that there were certain amounts misappropriated by B.

Jayaraju, clerk cum cashier, who was an employee of the respondents bank and as

such the complainant verified her account with the respondent bank and found that

the said amounts covered under two receipts were not entered into the accounts or

ledgers of the bank. The amounts were misappropriated by B. jayaraju, clerk cum

cashier of the respondent bank. A case in Cr. No. 228/2007 under section 409 and

420 IPC was registered in Chinnachowk police station, Kadapa and charge sheet was

2

also filed by the police. The said case is pending trial in the concerned court. The

respondents are liable for the acts done by their employees. As seen from the copy of

the ledger, it is clear that the said Jayaraju was not mentioned the amounts which

were deposited by the complainant regularly. She cannot be expected to verify the

ledgers or accounts books of the respondents bank, whenever she deposits the

amounts with the bank and usually any customer takes receipts from the Bank. The

respondents are bound to make the amounts to sure to the amounts deposited by

her. The complainant requested the respondents several times to make an entry in

their registers and to make the payment to her, but the respondents have paid a deaf

ear. Thus the respondents are deficient while rendering services properly. The

complainant is nothing to do with the amounts misappropriated and thus she is

entitled for the amounts as follows.

a) Amount deposited on 25-7-2007 Rs. 50,000/-

b) amount deposited on 6-10-2007 Rs. 1,00,000/-

c) Interest at 18% from 6-10-2007 to 2-3-2009 Rs. 33,750/-

d) Amount for deficiency of service and mental agony Rs. 2,00,000/-

Total Rs. 3,83,750/-

The cause of action for the petition arose on 25-7-2009 and 6-10-2009 when the

complainant deposited amounts with R2, on all dates when the employee of the

respondents B. Jayaraju, clerk cum cashier misappropriated several amounts of the

customers including the complainant, on all dates when there was a case registered

against him by the concerned police and the complainant is entitled for the same.

The amounts deposited with the R2 bank is within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble

Forum. The complainant prays this Hon’ble Forum to direct the respondents to pay

a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of complaint till the

date of realization, to pay Rs. 2,00,000/- for deficiency of service and mental agony

and Rs. 2,000/- towards costs of the complaint.

3. R2 filed a counter stating that the complainant has opened S.B. Account

bearing No. 21616 with R2 bank and she used to operate the same. R2 use to supply

C.C. No. 57 of 2009

DISTRICT FORUM :: KADAPA

PRESENT SRI P.V. NAGESWARA RAO, M.A., LL.M., PRESIDENT

SRI S. ABDUL KHADER BASHA, B.Sc., MEMBER

Thursday, 16

3

the statement of account to the complainant for transactions transacted with R2

periodically. The complainant was expected to go through the statement of account

supplied to her periodically and bring to the notice of R2 of any discrepancy found in

the statement immediately thereafter, which she did not do so, except getting a vague

notice issued to R2 through her counsel with all false allegations. It is a fact that B.

Jayaraju, working as clerk cum cashier with R2’s bank committed misappropriation

of certain funds remitted by certain customers over a period of time by

acknowledging receipt of cash on the counterfoils, but not accounting for the same in

the books of the branch. On noticing the same the matter was reported to the

Vigilance department of the bank which investigated into the matter. During the

investigation it was noticed that Jayaraju misappropriated certain funds remitted by

the complainant as claimed by her. R2 has lodged a complaint with 1 town police

station, Kadapa on 11-12-2007, which was registered as Cr. No. 228/2007 U/s 409

& 420 IPC. During the investigation of the crime the complainant was also examined

by the police and her statement was recorded. The statement recorded on

22-12-2007, it was stated by her that she had remitted a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- on

25-4-2007 that she had also remitted another sum of Rs. 50,000/- on 25-7-2007 and

obtained counterfoils for the same and however, these amounts were not credited to

her account. The complainant got issued legal notice dt. 26-11-2007 issued to R2

through her counsel, already she had deposited Rs. 50,000/- on 21-3-2007 and

Rs. 1,00,000/- on 25-5-2007 and Rs. 1,00,000/- on 6-10-2007 to the credit of her

S.B. Account and obtained counter foils / receipts for the same and however, while

amounts of Rs. 50,000/- remitted on 23-1-2007 and Rs. 1,00,000/- remitted on

6-10-2007 were credited to the account with delay. The amount of Rs. 1,00,000/-

remitted on 25-5-2007 and Rs. 50,000/- dt. 25-5-2007 were not credited to her

account that she approached R2 requesting to give credit amount details. The

respondent in stead of giving proper reply for non credit of amounts to her account

has misbehaved with her. For the said notice R2 got reply issued to the counsel of

4

the complainant requesting him to advise the complainant to produce all original

counterfoils in her possession to verify the records of the branch and redress her

grievance. However, there was no response from the complainant nor she

approached R2 with the original counterfoils.

4. Contrary to what is alleged in the notice dt. 26-11-2007 now she alleges

that the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- remitted on 6-10-2007 and the amount of

Rs. 50,000/- remitted on 25-7-2007 were not credited to her account. In the notice

dt. 26-11-2007 it was clearly admitted by her that the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/-

remitted by her on 6-10-2007 was credited to her account with delay. The

verification of records of the branch reveal that the S.B. pay in slip which was

prepared on 6-10-2007 for remitting the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- for which the

counterfoil is held by the petitioner was actually remitted into the account on

8-10-2007 by altering the date from 6-10-2007 to 8-10-2007. The reason for much

late remittance might be the temporary misappropriation of the amount for two days

by the cashier jayaraju. If actually the amount remitted on 6-10-2007 is different

from the amount credited on 8-10-2007, the petitioner must be holding another

counterfoil dt. 8-10-2007 for Rs. 1,00,000/-. The complainant must be holding

another counterfoil dt. 8-10-2007 for Rs. 1,00,000/- the counter foil claimed to have

been issued to the complainant on 25-7-2007. A Xerox copy of which is filed before

this Hon’ble Forum contains alternations as on to the date. The alternation must

have been made with a malafide intention of making an unlawful claim against the

bank, taking advantage of the misdeed committed by the cashier of the branch. The

Xerox copy of the counterfoil claimed to have been issued to her on 25-7-2007 for the

amount of Rs. 50,000/- must have been issued to her prior to 25-7-2007 for a sum of

Rs. 50,000/- remitted, which is now pressed in to service by altering the date to

make an unlawful claim against the bank. She never remitted any amount on

25-7-2007. The complainant has choosen to file only Xerox copies of the counterfoils