Advocate Jayashree Kulkarni for the Complainant
Advocate Meghana Kirloskar for the Opponent No.1
Opponent No.2 through its Representative
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-**-
Per Hon’ble Shri. V. P. Utpat, President
:- JUDGMENT :-
Dated-5th May, 2014
This complaint is filed by consumer against service
provider for deficiency in service u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Brief facts are as follows-
[1] Complainant is resident of Annusaya Tower, Ghorpade Peth, Pune 411 042. Opponent No.1 is Bank of India situated at Kondhawa Road, Pune 411 040 and Opponent No.2 is HDFC Bank situated at Fort, Mumbai. It is the case of the complainant that, she had saving account in Bank of Opponent No.1. Its saving account number is 052010100002205. She is operating the same from time to time. She had deposited D.D. No.005078 of Rs.30,000/- dated 09/08/2010 in her saving account. She had obtained receipt from Opponent No.1 and waiting for crediting amount in her account for the period of two months. She had informed this fact to the Opponent No.1 by sending letter. Then, Opponent No.1 wrote letter to the Opponent No.2 for issuing duplicate D.D. Complainant had also sent such letter to the Opponent No.2. However, the said D.D. was not pressed and Opponent has failed to credit amount of Rs.30,000/- in her account. That amounts to deficiency in service. Complainant has asked value of D.D. i.e. Rs.30,000/, compensation of Rs.50,000/- for mental agony, cost of the proceeding and traveling expenses. Total claim of the complainant is Rs.95,000/-.
[2] Opponent No.1 had resisted the complaint by filing written version. Opponent No.2 has filed affidavit and resisted the claim of the complainant. It is the case of both Opponents that, D.D of Rs.7200/- was issued by the Opponent No.2 and that was deposited by the complainant in her account. It is categorically stated by the Opponent No.2 that, the said Bank had never issued D.D. of Rs.30,000/- Both Opponents have prayed for dismissal of the complaint with compensatory cost for filing false and frivolous complaint.
[3] After considering the pleadings of both parties, scrutinizing the documentary evidence and hearing argument of both counsel, following points arise for the determination of this Forum. The points, findings and reasons thereon are as follows-
Sr.No. | POINTS | FINDINGS |
1 | Whether complainant has established that Opponents have caused deficiency in service by not crediting D.D. of Rs.30,000/- in her account ? | In the negative |
2 | Whether Opponents are entitled for compensatory cost ? | In the affirmative |
3 | What order ? | Complaint is dismissed with cost. |
Reasons
As to the Point Nos. 1 to 3-
[4] The undisputed facts between the parties are that, the complainant had saving account with the Opponent No.1. It is the case of the complainant that, she had deposited D.D. of Rs.30,000/- in her saving account which is maintained by the Opponent No.1. According to the complainant, the said draft was dated 09/08/2010 and it was bearing no.005078. Complainant had produced counter file of the slip which is showing that the D.D. of Rs.30,000/- was deposited by her. In order to falsify this fact, Opponent No.1 has produced second part of the slip which is showing that the D.D. bearing No.005078 for Rs.7200/- was deposited by the complainant on 09/08/2010. The Opponent No.1 had also produced extract of account which is also disclosing that the amount of Rs.7200/- was credited in the account of complainant. Moreover, representative of Opponent No.2 HDFC Bank has denied the contents of the complaint by filing written version. One Kishor Thorat, Assistant Vice President of Wholesale Banking Operations HDFC Bank, has filed affidavit and solemnly affirmed on oath that, the Bank had issued D.D. in the name of complainant bearing No.005078 for Rs.7200/- and not Rs.30,000/-. The Xerox copies of the said D.D. are also produced by the Opponent which are disclosing that the D.D. of Rs.7200/- only was issued by the Opponent No.2. The learned Advocate for the Complainant has pressed for calling the original D.D. It is significant to note that there is no possibility of 2 D.D.s of different amounts having one and the same number. It is not the case of complainant that she had deposited two demand drafts of same number for value of Rs.7200/- and Rs.30,000/-. Moreover, the Opponent No.1 had established that complainant had deposited D.D. of Rs.7200/-. It appears from the record that, the complainant is trying to take disadvantage of the counter-slip which is showing that the amount of D.D. was Rs.30,000/-. That slip was issued by the Opponent No.1 inadvertently. Learned Advocate for the Opponent argued before this Forum that complainant has voluntarily filed this false and frivolous complaint. Complainant was aware that there cannot be two D.D.s of same number of different value. Still she had made a lot of correspondence with the Opponent and ultimately filed this complaint in order to extract money from the Opponents. The learned Advocate for the Opponent further argued that, this is a fit case in which section 26 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 shall be pressed into service. The said section laid down as follows-
“Section 26- Dismissal of frivolous or vexatious complaints- Where a complaint instituted before the District Forum, the State Commission or, as the case may be, the National Commission is found to be frivolous or vexatious, it shall, for reasons to be recorded in writing, dismiss the complaint and make an order that the complainant shall pay to the opposite party such cost, not exceeding ten thousand rupees, as may be specified in the order.”
[5] It is the opinion of this Forum that, this complaint is false and frivolous. Complainant had harassed Opponents by filing this false complaint and it is the considered opinion of this Forum that that, complainant should be penalized for filing this false and frivolous complaint. It is significant to note that the legislature has established the Consumer machinery for redressal of grievances of the consumers. That does not mean that they should use this Act as a tool and harass the service provider. In order to curb such tendency, mischievous complainants must have been punished. It is opinion of this Forum that complainant should be penalized for filing this false and frivolous complaint. She has filed false document knowingly in order to extract money from the Opponent Nos. 1 and 2. Hence, Opponent Nos. 1 and 2 are entitled for compensatory cost of Rs.5000/- each from the complainant. In the result, this Forum answers points accordingly and pass following order-
:- ORDER :-
1. Complaint is dismissed.
2. Complainant is directed to pay cost of Rs.5,000/- each u/s 26 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to the Opponent No.1 and 2 within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of order.
3. Both parties are directed to collect the sets which are provided for the Hon’ble Members within one month from the date of Order. Else those will be destroyed.
Copy of order be supplied to both the parties free of cost.
Place – Pune
Date – 05/05/2014
