<br /> COMPLAINT FILED: 28.08.2008<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> <br /> 03rd NOVEMBER 2008<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT <br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> SRI.A.MUNIYAPPA MEMBER <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO.1903/2008<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT Syed Umer Farukh,S/o Syed Basheer Ahmed Malik,R/a. No.7, Oshangnessy Road,Langford GardensBangalore – 560 025.Advocate – Sri.Ananthakrishna Murthy H.R.V/s.<br /> OPPOSITE PARTY Branch Manager,Amanath Co-operative Bank,R.V Road branch,Bangalore.Advocate – Sri.K.S.Kalleshappa<br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> <br /> 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 compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- and furnish the complaint details of the account right from the date of opening and for such other relief’s on an allegations of deficiency in service. <br /> <br /> The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under:<br /> <br /> Complainant is the partner of M/s. Fortune Precision Products. The said partnership firm opened the account at OP bearing No.753. The another partner is Mr.Abdul Majid. While opening the said account OP is obliged to verify the partition deed and obtain the signature of the other partner. It should also make it clear who has operate the said account. With all that OP failed in its primary duties and just permitted Sri.Abdul Majid to operate, which has resulted in huge withdrawal and loss in the business. The repeated requests and demands made by the complainant to stop the transactions went in futile. For no fault of his, he is made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. Thus he felt deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Complainant got issued legal notice on 02.04.2008. There was no response. Under the circumstances he is advised to file this complaint and sought for the reliefs accordingly.<br /> <br /> 2. On appearance, OP filed the version denying all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. According to OP complainant has not availed the services of the OP as contemplated under the Act. Before opening of the said account OP has verified certain documents with respect to the person who submitted an application, complainant name does not appear in the partnership deed. That is why his name is not included in the said account. In addition to that the said account was closed in the year 2005 itself. There is a dispute between the father of the complainant and one Abdul Majid. The matter has reached Arbitration court and a dispute was raised before the Co-operative Society the Registrar. OP followed all the Banking norms and practice. The other allegations of the complainant are all false and frivolous. Complaint is devoid of merits. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Among these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 4. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under:<br /> <br /> Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant has Proved <br /> the deficiency in service on the part of <br /> the OP?<br /> <br /> Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is <br /> entitled for the relief’s now claimed?<br /> <br /> Point No. 3 :- To what Order?<br /> <br /> <br /> 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:<br /> Point No.1:- In Negative<br /> Point No.2:- Negative<br /> Point No.3:- As per final Order.<br /> <br /> <br /> R E A S O N S<br /> <br /> 6. It is much contended by the complainant that he is the partner of M/s.Fortune Precision Products, for this complainant has not produced any documents. On the other hand the documents produced by the OP goes to show that he is not a partner of the said firm because the person who opted to open the account has mentioned the names of only one Abdul Majid, Ziaulla Sharief and Safiulla Sharief. So basically there is no proof with regard to the allegations made by the complainant. When the said partnership deed came in to existence is not mentioned in the complaint. <br /> <br /> 7. On the basis of the information furnished by the account opener OP allowed the so called persons to open the account. In that application complainant name is not found and Abdul Majid was authorized to operate the account. On the perusal of the other relative documents, it appears the father of the complainant had some dispute with the Abdul Majid with regard to investment and financial irregularities etc. That is why an Arbitration Case No.1/2008 is filed with respect to the said so called Fortune Precision Products. This fact is not pleaded by the complainant. So there is a suppression of some material facts which are well within the knowledge of the complainant.<br /> <br /> 8. The other documents also goes to show that some criminal complaints are filed with regard to other irregularities. That is also not pleaded by the complainant. Having considered all these facts and circumstances of the case and also to the fact that the alleged disputed account was closed on 27.09.2005 itself why complainant kept mum for all these three years without agitating his rights if at all any deficiency in service is committed by the OP is not known. During this delay much water might have been flown.<br /> <br /> 9. The fact that the said account was closed on 27.09.2005 is not denied or disputed by the complainant. Complaint appears to be devoid of merits and also barred by time. The allegations of procedural irregularities floating of Banking norms, R.B.I rules and guidelines in opening the account, operation of the account appears to be bald and baseless. Under such circumstances complainant is not entitled for the relief claimed. Accordingly we hold that the complainant failed to establish the deficiency in service. Hence we answer point Nos.1 & 2 in negative and proceed to pass the following: <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is dismissed. In view of the nature of dispute no order as to costs.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 03rd day of November 2008.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> Vln* <br /> <br /> <br />