KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
APPEAL No. 120/2006
JUDGMENT DATED:11-01-2011
PRESENT:
SHRI. S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER
SHRI. M.K. ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER
1. Branch Manager,
North Malabar Gramin Bank,
Kannur Main, Plaza Junction,
Fort Road, Kannur.
2. The Chairman,
North Malabar Gramin Bank, : APPELLANTS
Near Safire Building, Bank Road,
Kannur.
3. General Manager,
North Malabar Gramin Bank,
Near Safire Building, Bank Road,
Kannur.
(By Adv.M/s M.P.R.Nair & Devan Ramachandran)
Vs.
C.C.Pavithran,
Approved Valuer, Prema villa,
Behind Minarva Studio, : RESPONDENT
Cam Bazar, Kannur.
(By Adv.Sri.K.P.Satheesan & M.R.Jayaprasad)
JUDGMENT
SHRI. S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR: MEMBER
The order dated:23-9-2005 of CDRF, Kannur in OP.366/03 is being assailed in this appeal by the opposite parties. By the impugned order, they are under directions to refund Rs.1,100/- along with compensation of Rs.1000/- and cost of Rs.500/-.
2. The case of the complainant is that the 1st opposite party had withdrawn an amount of Rs.1,100/- from the SB account of the complainant without his knowledge and consent and credited the same in the account of another party. It is alleged that by the said action of the opposite party, the complainant was put to mental agony astonishment and other difficulties and the complaint was filed praying for the refund of the said amount with compensation and cost.
3. The opposite parties resisted the matter by filing version, wherein it was contended that the complaint was not maintainable as the issue involved in the complaint can not be treated as a consumer dispute. It was also submitted that the complainant was an approved and empanelled valuer of the opposite parties and the complainant had preferred bills in excess of what was due to him and it was a clerical mistake that the amount was credited to the account of the complainant. It was also submitted that a letter dated:4/9/2003 was issued to the complainant and there was no deficiency of service on their part. Submitting that there was no deficiency of service, they prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
4. The evidence consisted of the oral testimony of the complainant as PW1 and Extd.A1 to A3 on the side of the complainant. The 1st opposite party was examined as DW1 and Exts.B1 to B4 were marked on their side. It was based on the said evidence that the Forum below passed the impugned order.
5. Heard both sides. The learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued before us that the Forum below had not appreciated the real facts of the case in the correct perspective. He argued before us that it was after issuing Ext.B4 that the amount was transferred from the account of the complainant. It is further case that the complainant had committed fraud in preferring bills containing the amounts which was not eligible to him and in such a situation the action of the opposite parties could be considered as legal and perfect. It is also the case of the learned counsel that it was to safe guard the interest of the other customers that action was initiated by the opposite parties by withdrawing the excess amount credited to the account of the complainant. It is also his case that the recovered amount was credited to the eligible account holders and hence the order of the Forum below is liable to be set aside.
6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent/complainant supported the findings and conclusions of the Forum below. He has submitted that it was without giving notice to the complainant that the amount was transferred and the Forum below had appreciated the said fact in its correct spirit and that the order of the Forum is only to be sustained. He has further submitted that the other arguments raised by the learned counsel for the appellants cannot be considered by this commission as they are extraneous matters and were not rightly considered by the Forum below. He prayed for the dismissal of the appeal with costs.
7. On hearing the learned counsel for the appellants, respondent and also on perusing the records, we find that it is the admitted fact that the opposite parties had withdrawn an amount of Rs.1,100/- from the SB account of the complainant. The counsel for the appellants would argue that it was after giving notice to the complainant and also to safeguard the other customers of the bank that such an action was enunciated. On a perusal of the records we find that Ext.B4 letter was issued on 4/9/2003 and it was on the same day that the amount was withdrawn from the account of the complainant. It is found by the Forum below that such an action cannot be justified as the opposite parties had not produced any evidence to show that such a letter was sent. It is also to be found that the letter sent on 4/9/2003 cannot reach the addressee on 4/9/2003 itself. No opportunity was given to the complainant to explain his position or rather preferring the bills and in such a situation the argument of the learned counsel for the respondent that it was without notice that the amount was withdrawn from the complainant can only be accepted. We find no error or mistake or illegality in the order of the Forum below. The order of the Forum below is liable to be sustained. We do so accordingly.
In the result the appeal is dismissed. The order dated:23-08-2005 is confirmed. In the facts and circumstances of the present appeal there shall be no order as to costs.
S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER
VL.
M.K. ABDULLA SONA: MEMBER
