By G. Yadunadhan, President: The case of the complainant is that complainant’s wife Mrs. Jisha was a Post Graduate Degree holder, eligible for applying for UGC test for Junior & Research Fellowship and eligibile for Lectureship conducted by Human Resource Development Group, Council of Scientific and Industrial Research, New Delhi. As per notification application forms with regard to the above said UGC test were exclusively available with Syndicate Bank, Panniyankara Branch in the Malabar region. The cost of the application form for OBC category was Rs.200/-. Complainant purchased a set of application, bearing No.84103, as stated above for his wife after remitting Rs.200/- . After resuming his house, the complainant and his wife carefully studied the application form and it was noted that the space provided for affixing signature and seal of the issuing bank where it is specifically printed as ‘for bank use only’ in the application form remain vacant. It was clear that the application form would be considered unauthorized unless it contains the seal and signature of the issuing bank. The said defect crept in the application form due to the reckless and careless dealing of the opposite parties in selling the application forms. It was the foremost duty of the first opposite party to see that its seal and signature were placed at the appropriate place while issuing application form to the complainant after receiving the prescribed fees. Therefore complainant seeking relief against opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.10000/- with 12% interest and also to pay cost of this proceedings. Opposite parties 1 and 2 entered in appearance and filed their version. Opposite parties admitted that 1st opposite party has been entrusted with the sale of (CSIR, JFF/NET) application form for the last several years. The application forms are sold twice in a year, i.e., during September and March. There is only one type of information bulletin, which contains the application form. The cost for the same varies depending upon the category of the applicant (General –Rs.400; OBC –Rs.200/-;SC/ST/PH – Rs.100/-). The application form, which is inside the information bulletin, has to be signed by the authorized representatives of the bank. The procedure adopted for the sale of application form is as stated below: The applicant should fill up a pay-in-slip specially designed for the purpose, mentioning the name, category and amount. Cash is to be paid to the cashier who issues the Information Bulletin noting the amount in the application form and instructs the applicant to get it signed by the Branch Manager. The instructions to the applicants are not only contained in the Bulletin but are also displayed very prominently in the branch premises. It is true that an application bearing No.84013 was issued to Smt. Jisha on 29.3.2006 who had paid Rs.200/-. The application was sold to her on the said date by around 1 o’clock in the noon. Immediately when the Information Bulletin is handed over to the complainant by the cashier, he was asked to obtain the seal and signature of the Branch Manager. Not heeding the words of the cashier, the complainant went away from the branch premises without obtaining seal/signature of the Manager. By about 3 pm. on the very same day the complainant came to the branch and shouted at the staff sitting at the counter and also approached the cashier and enquired in harsh words about issuing the application form without seal and signature, whereupon cashier reminded him that he was instructed to obtain the same and also shown the complainant the instructions displayed in the branch premises, which clearly says that the applicants are to get the signature and seal of the Branch Manager after obtaining information bulletin (booklet) and before leaving the branch premises. On the same day at about 3 o’ clock complainant came to the branch and he was asked to get the signature of the Branch manager in the application form. As the complainant was in a fighting mood, he refused to get the signature and seal in the application form. As the opposite party has to return the unsold information bulletins to the appropriate authority, only after sale of the application forms the seal and signature of the branch will be affixed. As there was no deficiency on the part of the opposite parties the complaint has to be dismissed with costs. Points for consideration: Whether any deficiency on the part of the opposite parties? Complainant was examined as PW1. Exts. A1 to A3 were marked on the side of the complainant. Sri. M.K. Aravindakshan, then the Asst. Manager, Syndicate Bank, Panniyankara Branch was examined as RW1. Ext. B1 was marked on the side of the opposite parties. On perusal of the Ext. A1 document, it is clearly shows that the information bulletin was not available except in Syndicate Bank, Panniyankara Branch in the Malabar region. This fact clearly admitted by the opposite parties. A specific column in the bulletin should be filled by the bank only after receiving the amount of Rs.200/-. It is to be signed and sealed by opposite party No.2. But it was not done by opposite party No.2. In para 5 of the version filed by the opposite parties, it is clearly stated that the application was sold to her on the said date by around 1 o’ clock in the noon. Immediately when the bulletin is handed over to the complainant by the cashier, he was asked to obtain the seal and signature of the Branch Manager. Complainant went away from the branch premises without obtaining seal and signature. Again in para 6 of the version, at about 3 o’ clock on the same day also, when the complainant came to the branch, he was asked to get the signature of the Manager in the application form. He refused to get the signature and seal of the branch manager in the application form. As the opposite party has to resubmit the unsold information bulletin to the appropriate authority only after sale of the application forms the seal and signature of the branch Manager will be affixed. From the version, opposite parties admitted that the information bulletin was sold to the complainant for Rs.200/-. If so, what prevents them to put the signature and seal in the specific space allotted in the bulletin “for bank use only”. It is the duty of the opposite party to put signature and seal of the Branch Manager in the specific column. They cannot escape from the liability from the eyes of law. If the particular officer does his work properly, the dispute can be avoided. This shows that there is clear negligence and deficiency on the part of the opposite parties. Therefore petition is allowed and the opposite parties are directed to pay a compensation of Rs.5000/- and a cost of Rs.500/- to the complainant. The amount shall be paid by the opposite parties 1 and 2 and that amount can be realized from the officer who was in-charge of delivering the Ext. A1 document on the particular day. Opposite parties are directed to comply the order within 30 days on the receipt of the copy of this order. Pronounced in open Court this the 20th day of March 2009. Sd/-President Sd/-Member APPENDIX Documents exhibited for the complainant: A1 Information bulletin and application from N o.84103 for UGC Test issued to Complainant. A2 True photocopy of the legal notice issued by the complainant to the 2nd opposite party with postal receipt and acknowledgement. A3 Reply notice sent by 2nd opposite party. Documents exhibited for the opposite parties: B1 Letter No.273/4308/54/2006/PDC dated 9.5.2006 sent byO.P. to complainant. Witness examined for the complainant. PW1 Ramachandran, S/o. Apputty K.P., Pokkat, Kunniniparamba Post – Complainant. Witness examined for the Opposite parties. RW1 Aravindakshan, M.K., S/o. Sankunni Nair, Syndicate Bank, Kottakkal. -/True copy/- Sd/-President (Forwarded/By Order) Senior Superintendent.
......................G Yadunadhan B.A.
......................Jayasree Kallat M.A. | | 
