IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS’ DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT MYSORE<br /> <br /> PRESENT: 1. Shri.A.T.Munnoli<br /> B.A., L.L.B (Spl.) - President <br /> <br /> 2. Smt.Y.V.Uma Shenoi<br /> M.Sc., B.Ed., - Member<br /> 3. Shri. Shivakumar.J.<br /> B.A., L.L.B., - Member<br /> <br /> CC 368/09 DATED 17.11.2009<br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> Complainant Basavaiah S/o late Sannaiah, Door No. (Old) 4776, 4th cross, Maratha Block, N.R. Mohalla, Mysore.<br /> New Address: 69, 4th cross, Kurimandi Block Kesare, Rajendra Nagara, Mysore City, Mysore-7.<br /> <br /> (In person)<br /> <br /> Vs. <br /> Opposite Party The Branch Manager, Canara Bank, Nazarabad Branch, Mysore.<br /> ( By Sri. H.C.P. Advocate)<br /> <br /> Nature of complaint : Deficiency in service<br /> Date of filing of complaint : 05.10.2009<br /> Date of appearance of O.P. : 21.10.2009<br /> Date of order : 17.11.2009<br /> Duration of Proceeding : 26 days<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> Sri. A.T.Munnoli,<br /> President<br /> <br /> 1. The complainant has filed the complaint seeking a direction to the opposite party to pay compensation for wrongly crediting the P.F amount into the wrong account than that of the complainant.<br /> <br /> 2. In the complaint it is alleged that the complainant was serving in the Sri Krishna Rajendra Textile Mill, which has been closed in the year 1984. The Centre Textile Ministry ordered to pay compensation to the unemployed persons of the said mill. Said compensation was to be paid through the opposite party bank and the amount was to be credited into the S.B. account of the complainant. In the list of the persons entitled to the compensation, there is another Basavaiah. On account of negligence on the part of the manager or the staff of the opposite party bank, the amount that was to be credited into the account of the complainant came to the credited into the account of another Basavaiah. When the complainant complained the same to the opposite party, there was no response or reply. Even though the names of both persons are same, their account numbers are different and so also the P.F. number. Hence, it is the duty of the opposite party to recover the amount from the said person. There is no meaning in waiting till the amount is recovered from the said person. The opposite party is liable to pay the said amount to the complainant. It is further stated that in the statement, the S.B. account number of the complainant has been rectified after the opposite party realized the mistake. In spite of laps of 8 months, the opposite party has not paid the said amount. On these grounds, it is prayed to allow the complaint.<br /> <br /> 3. In the version, the opposite party amongst other contentions has stated that, as per the statement of account of the Regional Officer of the Textile Commissioner, Bangalore, the amount was credit into the account of another Basavaiah and when the complainant brought that fact to the notice of the opposite party, a notice was sent to said Basavaiah, who had withdrawn both the amounts and he repaid only Rs.4,000/-. Further, it is contended that, without consideration and charges, the opposite party is rendering service and hence, the complaint is not maintainable. Also it is contended that, the complaint is bad for non joinder of necessary party. On these grounds, it is prayed to dismiss the complaint.<br /> <br /> 4. To prove the respective contentions, the complainant and the opposite party have filed their affidavits and certain documents are produced. We have heard the complainant and advocate for the opposite party. Also we have perused the entire material on record.<br /> <br /> 5. Now the points arises for consideration are as under:-<br /> 1. Whether the complainant has proved any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and that he is entitled to the reliefs sought?<br /> 2. What order?<br /> 6. Our findings are as under:-<br /> Point no.1 : Negative.<br /> Point no.2 : As per the order.<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> 7. Point no. 1:- From the material on record, admittedly there is another Basavaiah than the complainant. It is true both of them have got different S.B. Account with opposite party. But the learned advocate for the opposite party with reference to the statement sent by the office of the Regional Office of the Textile Commissioner, Bangalore, pointed out that apart from the fact that name of the complainant is also Basavaiah to whose account both the amounts have been credited, the S.B. account number is shown in 5th column and both the numbers mentioned is same i.e., 33733. Because, same number against two persons was shown in the list by the office of Textile Commissioner, Bangalore, in that account both the amounts were credited.<br /> 8. Thus from the records it is clear that, because the office of the Textile Commissioner, Bangalore wrongly shown the S.B. Account number in the statement, the opposite party bank credited the amount in the said S.B. account. When that is so, the opposite party cannot be held negligent. The main mistake is by the office of the Textile Commissioner in mentioning same S.B. account number against the complainant as well as another Basavaiah.<br /> <br /> 9. The records further disclose that, non-crediting the P.F. amount in to S.B. account, on verification the opposite party noticed both the amounts have been credited into the S.B. account of another Basavaiah and then the opposite party issued notice to said Basavaiah who has repaid only Rs.4,000/- and the remaining amount is yet to be recovered by the opposite party from the said person.<br /> <br /> 10. Now, the opposite party has found that, the amount of the complainant has been credited into the account of another Basavaiah. The opposite party has taken steps to recover that amount from another Basavaiah. During the course of argument, learned advocate for the opposite party has submitted that part amount has been paid by said Basavaiah and if remaining amount is not paid, legal steps will have to be taken to recover the said amount from said Basavaiah. Under the circumstances, at these stage it is suffice to note that let the opposite party take legal action against the said Basavaiah to recover the said amount along with interest or damages and on recovery, credit that amount into the account of the complainant. We hope that, the opposite party will initiate action against the said Basavaiah without delay. With these observations, our finding on the point is in negative.<br /> <br /> 11. Point No. 2:- From the discussion made above and conclusion arrived at, we pass the following order.<br /> <br /> ORDER <br /> 1. The complaint is dismissed with an observation that, without delay the opposite party to take action in accordance with law to recover the amount from another Basavaiah in whose account the amount has been credited.<br /> 2. There is no order as to cost.<br /> 3. Give a copy of this order to each party according to Rules.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, transcript revised by us and then pronounced in the open Forum on this the day 17th November 2009)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (A.T.Munnoli) <br /> President <br /> <br /> <br /> (Y.V.Uma Shenoi)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> (Shivakumar.J.)<br /> Member<br /> <br />