SRI.K. VIJAYAKUMARAN, PRESIDENT. Complaint for transfer of funds authorized charges debiting in the account compensation costs etc. The averments in the complaint can be briefly summarized as follows: The complainant as a partner of M/s. Sankar and Moorthy, Chartered Accountants have been operating the current A/c. No.446765292 with the opp.party. The bank has also issued a certificate stating the fact. While so, the complainant issued a cheque for Rs.687/- to the Corporation Bank, Pallimukku Branch, Kollam on 1.8.2007. But the cheque was returned for want of funds. On enquiry with the opp.party Bank he was given a printout of the Accounts Statement showing unauthorized closure of the above account on 12.7.2007, by transferring the balance amount to an unknown Account without the complainant’s authorization. The Bank has done so without any intimation to the complainant thereby denying natural justice of being heard. Thereafter the complainant applied for details under the Right to information Act. But the information was also not furnished. The complainant understand that the opp.party bank have colluded with others and acted malafide causing irreparable damage to the reputation of the complainant, mental agony and humiliation. The opp.party bank has not shown any courtesy to set right the wrong nor have co-operated with the complainant to get information under the Right to Information Act 2005. The opp.party bank has also did not comply with the RBI directives regarding closing of an account. Hence the complaint. The opp.party filed version contending interalia, that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. There is no cause of action for filing this complainant against the opp.parties. The complainant in his individual capacity is neither a customer nor a consumer of the opp.party and as such he is not entitled to file a complaint against this opp.party. The complainant was a partner of a firm M/s. Sankar & Moorthi, Thiruvanananthapuram and he was in charge of their Kollam Branch Office. Based on the request of the Firm a current account was opened with this opp.party in April, 2002. As authorized by the Firm the said account was permitted to be operated by the complainant as its partner. The complainant informed the Secretary, ICAI, New Delhi that the said Branch office of the Firm was closed and he ceased to be a partner of the firm. Consequent to the retirement of the complainant the firm was reconstituted with effect from 20.12.2004 by accepting the retirement of the complainant and their branch office at Kollam was closed by letter dated 9.5.2007 The Firm requested this opp.party to close the said account. This was intimated to the Trivandrum Branch office as well where the firm is maintaining their main account The cheque issued by the complainant was returned unpaid since the above account was non existing . There was no illegal or unauthorized dishonoring of the cheque. The complainant preferred a complaint on the same set of facts before the Banking Ombudsman, Trivandrum. The opp.party submitted a detailed counter to the said complaint. After hearing both sides the said complaint was dismissed. The opp.party Bank hass not committed any wrong or deficiency in service. The Complaant is false, frivolous, vexatious and totally malicious, intended to insure the reputation of the Bank.. Hence the opp.party prays to dismiss the complaint with compensatory costs. Points that would arise for consideration are: 1. Whether the complaint is maintainable 2. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opp.party 3. Reliefs and costs. For the complainant PW.1 is examined. Ext. P1 to P10 are marked. For the complainant DW.1 and 2 are examined. Ext. D1 to D7 are marked. POINTS: There is no dispute that the complainant has opened the account in the opp.party bank as authorized by the Firm M/s Sankar and Moorthi . Ext. D1 is the authorization letter in this behalf The case of the complainant is that he has opened the account accordingly in 4/2002 and was operating the same. While so, on 1.8.2007 when he issued a cheque for Rs.687/- the same was dishonoured and returned for lack of funds in the account as per Ext.P3 and when Ext.P6 statement of accounts was obtained it was found that the above account was closed unauthorisedly on 12.7.2007 by transferring the amount in that account to an unknown account without his authorization which is deficiency in service. According to the opp.party they received Ext.D2 from M/s. Sankar and Moorthy requesting to close the above account and accordingly they closed the account and this fact was informed to M/s. Sankar and Moorthy as per Ext.D3 on 12.7.2007 and there is no illegal or unauthorized dishonouring of the cheque presented by the complainant on 1.8.2007 . It is the specific case of the opp.parties that the complainant retired from the Firm Sankar and Moorthy as early as 2004 and the firm was reconstituted on 20.12.2004. As pointed out earlier the account in the opp.party bank was opened and operated by the complainant as authorized by the Firm and when the Firm require the opp.party to close the account the opp,.party has no choice but to close the same as the complainant was operating the account as a partner of the Firm as authorized by the Firm. In Ext. D1 it is specifically stated that the account is to be opened in the same of the form and not in the name of the complainant and it is also specifically stated therein that their partner, the complainant was to operate the account on behalf of the Firm. So the complainant cannot claim that he is the account holder and that he must be informed before closing the account. The complainant claim that he is still a partner of the Firm and in support of his contention he is relying on Ext.P1 certificate issued by the opp.party and Ext P10 judgement of the Munsiff Court, Kollam. Both these documents are prior to Ext. D2 and therefore Ext.P1 and P10 will not help the complainant. The complainant is claiming that he continues to be the partner of Firm Sankar and Moorthy as he has not retired as a partner can retire only after giving one months notice in writing to the other parties in advance expressing his intention to retire and there is absolutely nothing to show that he has expressed such willingness. The question as to whether the complainant has not retired from the Firm or the reconstitution of the same is proper or not are not matters to be considered by the opp.party. These aspects does not fall for consideration of this Forum also as the Firm or the ICAI are not parties to this proceedings. It is also worth pointing out in this context that the complainant himself has addressed the Secretary ICAI as per Ext D6 that he has ceased to be a partner of the Firm Sankar and Moorthy and that he would practice as CA in his individual name with effect from 20.12.2004 and Ext. D6 corroborates the version of the opp.parties that the complainant ceased to be a member of Sankar and Moorthy Firm from 2004. The complainant has no case that after issuing Ext. D6 he again became a partner of the Firm. Ext. D7 shows that the complainant is not a partner of the Firm Sankar and Moorthy after its reconstitution in 2005. In the light of Ext. D6 and 7 Exts. P1 and P10 are of no significance. It is also to be noted that Ext.P1 was issued prior to Ext. D2 and D3. Exts. D1 to D3 and D6 have not been challenged by the complainant. The conduct of the complainant in approaching this Fornm after issuing. Ext. D6 would clearly establish that he has approached this Forum with unclean hands. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opp.party. Point found accordingly. In the result the complaint fails and the same is hereby dismissed with compensatory costs Rs.2500/- to the opp.party Dated this the 25th day of June, 2010. I N D E XList of witnesses for the complainant PW.1. – K. Sudhakaran List of documents for the complainant P1. - Certificate dt. 3.7.3007 P2. – Letter dt. 26.7.07 of the Corporation Bank P3. – Return Memo P4. – Letter dt. 15.10.03 of Corporation Bank P5. - Bank Certificate from South Indian Bank P6. – State of account of Indian Bank P7. – Partnership deed P8. – Copy of objection P9.- Letter sent by complainant to the Joint Secretary, SIRC of ICAI, Chennai dt.3.8.07 P10. – Photocopy of judgement of PRL. MunsiffCourt, Kollam. List of witnesses for the opp.parties DW.1. – H.K. Unnikrishnan DW.2. - Suresh List of documents for the opp.parties D1. – Letter dt. 8.4.2002 D2. – Letter dt. 30.6.07 D3. – Letter dt. 12.7.07 D4. - Letter to Banking Ombutsman dt. 17,10.07 D5. – Letter from Banking Ombusman dt. 21.10.07 D6. – Letter sent by complainant to the Secretary, ICAI D7. – Partnership deed | 
