BEFORE THE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD.

F.A. 309/2010 against C.C. 455/2009, Dist. Forum-I, Hyderabad.

Between:

The Branch Manager

State Bank of Hyderabad

Bharathnagar Branch

Hyderabad. *** Appellant/

O.P. No. 1

And

1) B. Aparna, D/o. Mohan Reddy

Age: 23 years, Student

H.No. 12-10-67 (MGH-67)

Bharathnagar, Hyderabad-18. *** Respondent/

Complainant

2) The Chief Manager

National Insurance Company Ltd.

Regd. Office: 3, Mindletan Street

Post Box No. 9229

Kolkatta-21. *** Respondent

O.P. No. 2.

Counsel for the Appellant: M/s. K. Phani Kumar.

Counsel for the Respondent: P.I.P. (R1)

M/s. M. Sravan Kumar (R2)

CORAM:

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT.

SMT.M.SHREESHA, LADY MEMBER.

&

SRI R. L. NARASIMHA RAO

MONDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND TEN

ORAL ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice D. Appa Rao, President.)

***

1) This is an appeal preferred by op1 bank against the order of the Dist. Forum directing it to pay Rs. 25,000/- towards compensation besides costs of Rs. 2,000/-.

2) The case of the complainant in brief is that on the notification issued by the insurance company for the post of Administrative Officer (Scale-I) calling for applications from the eligible and qualified members she purchased a demand draft (DD) for Rs. 500/- from the appellant bank drawn in favour of insurance company for which it had charged Rs. 15/- towards service charges. She submitted the application along with DD. The insurance company by its letter dt. 7.2.2009 returned the DD on the ground that it was defective and the date of issue was not mentioned and requested to get it corrected from the bank and submit the same at the venue on the date of examination. She received it on 9.3.2009 after the date of examination. When she approached the insurance company with another DD however it refused to receive it as it was submitted beyond the stipulated time. All this was happened due to negligence on the part of appellant bank. More over the insurance company was negligent in sending a letter on 7.2.2009 which was received by her on 9.3.2009. Due to its delay she was unable to sit for the examination. Thereupon she gave legal notice demanding compensation of Rs. 20 lakhs. Therefore she filed the complaint claiming compensation of Rs. 20 lakhs for deficiency in service besides loss of opportunity in getting the job.

3) The appellant bank resisted the case. When the complainant sought for DD for Rs. 500/- a printed DD prepared through computer along with particulars as programmed was given. The computer had generated a number of DDs and they were issued on the said date and there was no complaint. In fact the complainant did not complain anything about the DD at the time of handing over of DD. It was not aware of the letter sent by the insurance company dt. 7.2.2009. Had it been brought to its notice about the defect in the DD it could have been rectified immediately. There was no reason why she had taken another DD instead of approaching it. For the notice sent by the complainant it gave correct reply. Absolutely there was no negligence or carelessness on its part. The complaint is speculative in nature. Submission of application and appearance of the complainant for an examination would not ensure employment. On that score it cannot be said that she had suffered mental agony and harassment. There was no cause of action for filing the complaint, and therefore prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

4) The insurance company did not choose to contest and therefore it was set-exparte.

5) The complainant in proof of her case filed her affidavit evidence and got Exs. A1 to A4 marked while the bank filed the affidavit evidence of its Manager.

6) The Dist. Forum after considering the evidence placed on record opined that the DD which was issued to the complainant was not computer generated but it was hand written. It does not bear the date of issue and the same was kept blank. It was the responsibility of the bank to ensure that the DD was without any defect. Therefore the Dist. Forum opining that the complainant had lost an opportunity awarded a compensation of Rs. 25,000/-.

7) Aggrieved by the said decision the bank preferred the appeal contending that the Dist. Forum did not appreciate the facts in correct perspective. The complainant having received the DD ought to have checked the particulars before leaving the bank so that in case of any defect it could have corrected the error. When the insurance company by its letter directed the complainant to get the date mentioned in the DD which was received by the complainant on 9.3.2009 subsequent to the examination it cannot be faulted with it. It is not responsible or liable for the acts of R2. The insurance company was negligent and posted the letter belatedly. At any rate the compensation that was awarded was unjustified, excessive and prayed that the appeal be allowed.

8) The point that arises for consideration is whether the order of the Dist. Forum is vitiated by mis-appreciation of fact or law?

9) It is an undisputed fact that the complainant has purchased a DD for Rs. 500/- on 15.1.2009 and submitted an application to appear for an examination conducted by the insurance company for Administrative Officer (Scale-I) along with DD. It is not in dispute that the insurance company returned the DD mentioning that it did not bear date of issue and asked her to get the issue date mentioned in the DD vide its letter Dt. 7.2.2009 marked as Ex. A1. The examination was slated on 22.2.2009. The complainant alleges that the DD was received by her belatedly on 9.3.2009 subsequent to the date of examination. Therefore she had suffered mental agony and entitled to compensation. Though there was no occasion for the Dist. Forum to know the defence of the insurance company as it did not choose to contest, however in the appeal it has filed its written arguments. The submission that despite the fact that DD was returned for getting it corrected, she was allowed to sit for the examination she having furnished another DD for the said amount, was disposed.

10) It also alleged that it had informed about the non-mentioning of the date of DD by its letter dt. 7.2.2009. The fact that it was received belatedly on 9.3.2009 is not evidenced by any document. Admittedly the complainant had suppressed the said cover, lest it would reveal that it was received well within time. Even in the appeal she did not file the document by way of additional evidence in order to find fault with the insurance company for sending the cover belatedly. It is not in dispute that the complainant was allowed to appear for the examination and she appeared in general category and she did not qualify as she got less than qualifying marks. In other words whatever be the defect in the DD, no prejudice was caused to her.

She did not suffer any loss due to the conduct of the bank in not mentioning the date on the DD. May be non-mentioning of date on the DD amounts to deficiency in service, more over the very plea that it was computer generated is equally false. The appellant a nationalized bank ought not to have raised untenable and false contentions. Whatever be the defect, the complainant was permitted to sit in the examination and she had failed and therefore it cannot be said that she had sustained any loss due to the conduct of t he appellant bank. However, we may state that the bank having received the amount ought to have cancelled it when it came to its notice and returned Rs. 500/- which it had collected for issuing DD. This DD was not utilized by the complainant. Therefore the bank is liable to refund the amount collected under the DD. The compensation awarded by the Dist. Forum has to be necessarily set-aside as there was no prejudice caused to the complainant in view of the so called mistake made by the bank.

11) In the result the appeal is allowed in part setting aside the order of the Dist. Forum. The appellant is directed to refund Rs. 500/- which was collected under DD within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order. However, parties are directed to bear their own costs.

1) _______________________________

PRESIDENT

2) ________________________________

MEMBER

Dt. 27. 09. 2010.

*pnr