Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

A/439/2023

State Bank of India - Complainant(s)

Versus

A.R.Ramaswamy - Opp.Party(s)

S.Makesh

16 Jun 2023

ORDER

IN THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI.

 

Present:   Hon’ble THIRU JUSTICE R. SUBBIAH  : PRESIDENT

                 THIRU R  VENKATESAPERUMAL          :    MEMBER

 

F.A. No. 439 of 2023

(Against the Order passed in C.C. No.110 of 2022 dated 26.10.2022 on the file of the D.C.D.R.C., Nagapattinam)

 

Dated the 16^th day of June 2023

State Bank of India,

Earlier State Bank of Travancore,

Lakshmanasamy Salai Branch,

Plot No.97, Ashok Venkadatri,

Lakshmana Swamy Salai,

K.K. Nagar Branch,

Chennai – 600 078.                            .. Appellant / Opposite party.

- Vs –

A.R. Ramasamy,

No.47 F/3, Ramasamy Salai,

Above Meena Eye Care,

K.K. Nagar,

Chennai – 600 078.                         .. Respondent / Complainant.

 

Counsel for Appellant / Opposite party  : M/s. S. Makesh

Respondent / Complainant                   : Party in person                                                                      

                The Respondent as complainant had filed a complaint before the District Commission against the opposite party praying for certain directions.  The District Commission had passed an ex-parte order, allowing the complaint. Against the said ex-parte order, this appeal is preferred by the opposite party praying to set aside the order of the District Commission dt. 26.10.2022 in C.C. No.110/2022.

 

                This petition came before us for hearing finally, today.  Upon hearing the arguments of the counsel appearing for the both parties, perusing the documents, lower court records and the order passed by the District Commission, this Commission made the following order in the open court.

 

ORDER

 

R  VENKATESAPERUMAL,  MEMBER (Open court)

 

1.     The opposite party before the District Commission is the appellant herein.

 

2.     The case of the complainant before the District Commission is that he had SB A/c No.67081862064.  He issued a cheque in favour of the Tamil Nadu Water Board for Rs.2,564/- but the cheque was returned on 13.06.2016 and the bank has debited Rs.345/- as cheque returned charges from his account.  The complainant had accepted that it is his mistake for not maintaining sufficient balance at that time and requested the bank to refund the cheque return charges of Rs.345/-.  Since he magnanimously not claimed any compensation inrespect of the earlier transaction that had taken place in the year 2013 for returning the cheque “refer to drawer”. the opposite party ought to have refunded the cheque return charges.  But the said amount was not returned.  While so, the complainant requested the bank to issue a cheque book in August 2016, though the bank has not informed any charges for issuing cheque book they have debited a sum of Rs.69/- from his account.   So, the complainant requested the banking Ombudsman, Chennai to advise the bank to re-credit the said amount.  The complainant has given a requisition letter dt.06.10.2016 to the bank of Travancore to request the bank to the reversal of the charges collected by the bank from the complainant’s account.  The bank has given reply letter on 26.10.2016 but not refunded the amount.  A complaint was filed by the complainant before the Banking Ombudsman, Chennai and the same was numbered as 201617006003491 dt. 17.11.2016.  But the said complaint was rejected.  Hence, the complainant again sent a complaint to the Banking Ombudsman dt. 13.04.2017 to reconsider the complaint but the Banking Ombudsman rejected the same.  Again the complainant made a complaint to the Deputy Governor and the Appellate Authority, Reserve Bank of India, Central Office, Mumbai dt. 18.09.2017 and for which, he received a letter dt.13.01.2019 stating that the complaint has been disposed of under clause 13(a) against the said matter, no appeal can be entertained under the provisions of the scheme by the Appellate Authority.  Hence, alleging deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party the present complaint has been filed to refund a sum of Rs.69/- and Rs.2,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony with cost.

 

3.     Though notice was served, the Appellant/ opposite party remained absent before the District Commission and hence on 20.09.2022, he was set ex-parte.   Consequently, the District Commission passed an ex-parte order directing the opposite party to pay a sum Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for damages, mental agony and financial loss suffered due to the negligent / deficient actions with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till realization to the complainant. 

 

4.     Aggrieved over the said order, this appeal is preferred by the opposite party, praying for setting aside the order and for a chance to contest the case on merits. 

 

5.     Before this commission, the counsel for the appellant/opposite party submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party and that they have got valid defense and a fair chance of succeeding the complaint.  Therefore, he sought to set aside the order dt. 26.10.2022 of the District Commission and prayed for an opportunity to contest the case on merits.

 

6.     When the case had come up before this Commission on 16.06.2023, after hearing the submission of the appellant, this Commission had felt that there is some force in the arguments of the counsel for the appellant/opposite party and therefore in order to give a chance to the opposite party, to agitate their right on merits, was inclined to allow this appeal by remanding the matter to the District Commission, to dispose of the case on merit.   However considering the lethargic attitude of the opposite party, in appearance before the District Commission, we imposed a cost of Rs.3000/- to be paid to the respondent in person to be paid by the appellant.  Immediately, the appellant has paid the cost of Rs.3,000/- which was also endorsed by the respondent in person on the Appeal Grounds. Hence, this appeal is allowed today by remanding back the complaint to the District Commission for fresh disposal according to law. 

 

 In the result, the appeal is allowed by setting aside the order of the District Commission, Nagapattinam in C.C. No.110/2022 dt.26.10.2022, and the matter is remanded back to the District Commission, Nagapattinam for fresh disposal according to law and on merits after hearing both sides.

 Both parties are directed to appear before the District Commission, Nagapattinam on 14.07.2023 for further proceedings.  The appellant / opposite party is directed to file Vakalath, Written Version, proof affidavit, written arguments and documents if any on the same day itself.

 The District Commission is directed to dispose of the complaint on merits within three months after hearing both parties as expeditiously as possible as per law.  

 Both parties shall abide by the order of the District Commission regarding the mandatory deposit already made by the appellant / opposite party before this Commission.

 

 

 

   R  VENKATESAPERUMAL                                                                                                            R. SUBBIAH

                 MEMBER                                                                                                                             PRESIDENT

 

 

Index :  Yes/ No

KIR/SCDRC/Chennai/Orders/June / 2023