A.NainarKani,A.Syed Abuthakir filed a consumer case on 01 Apr 2016 against By its Manager,Punjab National Bank, in the North Chennai Consumer Court. The case no is 84/2014 and the judgment uploaded on 03 Jun 2016.
Complaint presented on:22.04.2014
Order pronounced on:01.04.2016
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)
2nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3
PRESENT: THIRU.K.JAYABALAN, B.Sc., B.L., PRESIDENT
TMT.T.KALAIYARASI, B.A.B.L., MEMBER II
FRIDAY THE 01st DAY OF APRIL 2016
C.C.NO.84/2014
1. A.Nainar Kani,
2. A. Syed Abuthakir,
Partners “parrys Book House”
#: 195 NSC Bose Road,
Chennai - 01
.....Complainants
..Vs..
Punjab National Bank,
By its Manager,
#:15-16 Rattan Bazar 1st Floor,
NSC Bose Road Branch,
Chennai - 03.
| ||
...Opposite Party |
|
Date of complaint : 29.04.2014
Counsel for Complainant :S.Natarajan
Counsel for Opposite party :M/S. S.Rajeni Ramadass
O R D E R
BY PRESIDENT THIRU. K.JAYABALAN B.SC., B.L.,
This complaint is filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.
1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:
The Complainants and his brother A Jamal Mohamed are booksellers doing partnership business in the name of “Parry’s Book House” at No.195, N.S.C.Bose Road, Chennai- 1. The said partnership business was dissolved in the year 2003 and A. Jamal Mohamed was retired from partnership. The Complainants started a new partnership and continued the same business. The Complainants auditor informed the dissolution to the Opposite Party/Bank and the same was acknowledged by the bank. The Complainants filed a suit against A. Jamal Mohamed before the City Civil Court, Chennai and obtained interim injunction and the said suit is pending. A. Jamal Mohamed applied for the statement with Opposite Party and for the same, a sum of Rs.1,200/- was debited from the current account of the Complainants. The Opposite Party issued statement in violation of banking rules and not maintained the secrecy and Complainants account money wasted and thereby committed Deficiency in Service. Hence this Complaint is filed claiming compensation with costs of the Complaint.
2.WRITTEN VERSION OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF:
The Complainants along with their brother Mr.A. Jamal Mohamed were doing partnership business under the name and style of M/S. Parrys Book House. But the Opposite Party was not aware of the contention of the Complainants that their business got dissolved in the year 2003 and Mr. A. Jamal Mohamed retired from the partnership and a new partnership was constituted and continued with Mr.A.Nainarand Mr.A.SyedAbuthahir. The dissolution of their Firm was duly informed to the Opposite Party through the Complainants Auditor is denied. There is no evidence is available to show that the Complainants have intimated to them about the dissolution of their Partnership Firm during the year 2003 or subsequently. The Complainants letter dated 18.08.2014 given to the Opposite Party along with the Trading and Profit & Loss Account and Balance Sheet as on 13.03.2004 which was subsequent to the date of dissolution of partnership indicates that the Complainants along with the said Mr.A. Jamal Mohamed were the Partners of the firm. The contention of the Complainants that they have informed the Opposite Party about the dissolution of their partnership firm is false and baseless. The Opposite Party is not aware of any suit filed by the Complainants against the said Mr.A. Jamal Mohamed before the City Civil Court, Chennai. It is true that the statement of account of the Firm parry’s Book House was issued to the said Mr.A. Jamal Mohamed on 26.12.2013. But the statement of account related to cash credit account of the said firm and not the current account as alleged by the Complainants. Moreover as the information about his retirement from the said firm was not known to the Opposite Party. Therefore an amount of Rs.1,200/- was deducted from the current account of Parry’s Book House towards issue of statement of account of cash credit account. The Opposite Party has not disclosed the information about the Complainants current account details as the statement of account pertaining to cash credit account was given to said Mr. A. Jamal Mohamed relating to misuse of statement of account and lodging of police Complaint as alleged by the Complainants. The Opposite Party has not violated any banking rules as alleged by the Complainant. The Complainant has not made out any case of Deficiency in Service and prays to dismiss the complaint.
3. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:
1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what relief?
4. POINT:1
The admitted facts are that the Complainants and his brother A. Jamal Mohamed were doing partnerships business in the name of “Parrys Book House” and they were maintaining an account with the Opposite Party/ bank in the said partnership name and at request of A. Jamal Mohamed, the Statement of Account of the partnership firm was furnished by the Opposite Party, by debiting an amount of Rs.1,200/- from the partnership account.
5. According to the Complainants, the partnership business was dissolved on 31.03.2003 under Ex.A1, by retiring one of the partner A. Jamal Mohamed and such dissolution was informed to the Opposite Party by the auditor of the Complainants and after that at request of A. Jamal Mohamed the Ex.A3 Statement of Account was furnished to him by the Opposite Party is Deficiency in Service.
6. According to the Complainants Ex.A1 is the dissolution of the partnership deed dated 30.11.2003. No proof filed by the Complainants to show that the dissolution was informed to Opposite Party/Bank by the Complainants Auditor. The Opposite Party categorically denied in the written version that the alleged dissolution of partnership was not informed to him. The Complainants filed proof affidavit of evidence, after filing of written version by Opposite Party and in the said proof affidavit also the Complainants have not stated or filed any proof with proof affidavit that how the Auditor informed the dissolution of partnership to the Opposite Party. The Opposite Party filed Ex.B1 letter received by him, issued by the 2ndComplainant with profit and loss account for the year ending 31.03.2004. The said profit and loss account statement contains the name of alleged retired partner A. Jamal Mohamed. Therefore, as per Ex.B1 till 31.03.2004 A. Jamal Mohamed continued as a partner in the partnership business. Hence it is held that the alleged dissolution was not informed to the Opposite Party, by the Auditor or the Complainants and such is the position, there is no fault on the part of the Opposite Party in furnishing statement to Mr. A. Jamal Mohamed who is a one of the partner of ‘parry’s Book House”. Therefore it is held that the Opposite Party has not committed any Deficiency in Service.
7. POINT:2
Since the Opposite Party has not committed Deficiency in Service, the Complainant is not entitled for any relief in this Complaint and the Complaint is liable to be dismissed.
In the result the Complaint is dismissed. No costs.
Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 01st day of April 2016.
MEMBER – II PRESIDENT
LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:
Ex.A1 dated 30.11.2003 Partnership deeds
Ex.A2 dated 22.01.2014 Police Complaint with receipt
Ex.A3 dated 21.01.2014 Statement of accounts
Ex.A4 dated 25.01.2014 Letter given by a Jamal Mohamed
Ex.A5 dated 01.02.2014 Legal notice
Ex.A6 dated 04.02.2014 Proof of delivery
LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE OPPOSITE PARTY:
Ex.B1 dated 18.08.2004 Complainant’s letter dated 18.08.2004 along with
Trading and Profit & Loss Account and Balance
Sheet as on 13.03.2004.
Ex.B2 dated NIL Account Statement
MEMBER – II PRESIDENT
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.