DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016

Case No.448/2014

Smt. Shakuntala

W/o Sh. Narayan Singh

R/o H.No. J-4/47,

Flat No.2, Ground Floor,

Khirki Extn., Malviya Nagar

New Delhi                                                                    ….Complainant

Versus

Andhra Bank

through its Branch Manager/A.R.

C-20, Malviya Nagar,

New Delhi-110017                                          ….Opposite Party

                                                          Date of Institution        : 11.11.14       Date of Order                 :    25.07.17

Coram:

Sh. N.K. Goel, President

Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member

ORDER

The complainant’s case is that she entered into a compromise with the defendant in C.S. No. 286/13 –Shakuntla Vs. Virender Mehta pending in the court of the Addl. District Judge-I, Saket Courts, New Delhi before the mediation centre on 17.09.2013 and as per the provisions of section 16 of the Court Fees Act she was refunded the court fee of Rs.15,000/-. She applied for refund of the court fee to the concerned SDM/Collector vide ref. No.72/2-2014 dated 05.02.14 as soon as possible. The office of the Collector of Stamps, Hauz Khas, M.B. Road, Saket, New Delhi passed an order thereby issuing the refund voucher of Rs.15,000/- in favour of the complainant vide F.No. 247/COS/ (HK)/refund/2014 dated 02.06.14  to her. The complainant has a saving bank account No.163710100005640 in OP bank and according to the complainant she deposited the original court fee and original order copy of Collector of Stamps i.e. refund voucher of the Rs.15,000/- in the OP bank on 05.06.14. However, the OP bank reported to the complainant that the voucher had been lost/misplaced in the bank and later on the OP raised a plea that the original refund voucher was not submitted by the complainant.  She wrote many letters to the Regional Officers of the OP bank but in vain.  Hence, pleading negligence and breach of trust on the part of the OP, the complainant has filed the present complaint for directing the OP to credit the refund voucher of Rs.15,000/- with interest, to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- for  mental torture, pain and agony and Rs.20,000/- as litigation charges.

          In the reply the OP bank has stated as follows:-

“8.     ….It is  Vehement ally denied that Complainant had deposited any original order copy of collector of stamp i.e. Refund Voucher No.No.F.No.247/ COS/(HK)/ Refund/2014 for of Rs.15,000/- in the Respondent Bank, instead Respondent Bank had requested the complainant to deposit the original or certified copy of the receipt which was never provided by the Respondent. It is pertinent to mention here that for this allegation against a Govt. of India undertaking bank the Respondent bank may proceed for criminal as well as civil action against the Complainant under the appropriate provision of law.”

According to the OP,  the bank always provides the receipt to their customers but the complainant has no such receipt and the  complainant has fabricated the facts against a Govt. of India undertaking concern. It is stated as follows:-

“11.   …It is pertinent to mention here that in the very beginning it was communicated to the complainant by the Malviya Nagar branch that this branch is not dealing with any Govt. business, Any Govt. business transaction is to be routed through our Connaught circus branch.”

It is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

Complainant has filed a rejoinder wherein she has inter-alia  stated that Ms. Sushma, the previous Branch Manager had accepted and told to the current Branch Manager that the original refund voucher had been submitted but the OP was neither ready to accept the same nor taking any action.

Complainant has filed her own affidavit in evidence.  On the other hand, affidavit of Sh. Swagatika Bal, Branch Head has been filed in evidence on behalf of the OP

Written arguments have been filed on behalf of the parties.

We have heard the oral arguments of the husband of the complainant and have also gone through the file very carefully.

Annexure-5 is the copy of the memorandum issued by the Collector of Stamps/SDM, Hauz Khas, New Delhi whereby the refund voucher bearing No. F.No.247/ COS/(HK)/ Refund/2014 of Rs.15,000/- was sent to the complainant with an advice to present the voucher to the Pay & Accounts Officer VI, Tis Hazari Court Building, Delhi for the payment through her bank. The copy of the same was also sent to the PAO-VI. Now the case of the complainant is that she had deposited the refund voucher with the OP bank but on the other hand, according to the OP the complainant had not deposited any such voucher in OP bank. Complainant for the first time took a plea in the replication that the previous Branch Manager Ms. Sushma had accepted and told to the current Branch Manager about the deposit of the original refund voucher with the OP bank.   In her affidavit,  the complainant has also given the mobile no. of Ms. Sushma. However, if Ms. Sushma, the previous Branch Manager of the OP bank had made any such talk to the current Branch Manager that the original refund voucher had been deposited by the complainant, the complainant would have asked her to submit her affidavit in evidence or moved an application for summoning her as a witness to depose before the Forum. Had it been so, the averment made on behalf of the complainant must have been substantiated with her testimony. 

Both parties have lead oral evidence.  The OP bank is a Govt. of India undertaking. Therefore, in the absence of any allegation of malafide or animosity or ill will on their part we do not see any reason to disbelieve the version of the OP that the complainant had never deposited any such voucher in the OP bank.  As recorded hereinabove, the case of the OP is that in the very beginning it had been communicated to the complainant by its Malviya Nagar Branch that the branch was not dealing with any Govt. business and any Govt. business transaction is to be routed through their Connaught Place Branch.  In the rejoinder, the complainant has not denied this fact meaning thereby the complainant has indirectly admitted this fact to be correct. If it is so, the question of the complainant depositing the original voucher with the OP bank does not arise.  Therefore, we hold that the complainant has failed to prove any negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the OP.

In view of the above discussion, we do not find any merit in the complaint and dismiss it with no order as to costs.

Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations.  Thereafter file be consigned to record room.

Announced on 25.07.17.