BEFORE THE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT MANGALORE
Dated this the 17th June 2010
COMPLAINT NO.4/2010
(Admitted on 8.1.2010)
PRESENT: 1. Smt. Asha Shetty, B.A. (Law) L.L.B., President
2. Smt. Lavanya M. Rai, B.A. (Law) L.L.B., Member
BETWEEN:
Venkatramana Bhat,
So Krishna Bhat,
Aged about 62 years,
Rat Preethi Nilaya,
Eshwamangala P.O.,
Puttur Tq, D.K. …….. COMPLAINANT
(Advocate for the Complainant: Sri.D.Sanjay)
VERSUS
1. District Treasury Officer,
Deputy Commissioner Office
Complex, State Bank,
Mangalore 01.
2. Manager,
Corporation Bank,
Pandeshwara Branch,
Mangalore.
3. Manager,
Corporation Bank,
Venkatramana Building,
Opp. K.S.R.T.C. Bus Stand,
Puttur, D.K. ……. OPPOSITE PARTIES
(Advocate for the Opposite Party No.1: Sri.K.Mahabala Shetty)
(Advocate for the Opposite Party No.2 and 3: Sri. S.M.Bhat)
ORDER DELIVERED BY PRESIDENT SMT. ASHA SHETTY:
1. The facts of the complaint in brief are as follows:
This complaint is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act alleging deficiency in service against the Opposite Parties claiming certain reliefs.
It is submitted that, the Complainant is a retired teacher who has retired from his service on 31.7.2006. At the time of retirement the Education Department has withheld a sum of Rs.10,000/- as Death Cum Retirement Gratuity (herein after referred as “DCRG”) from the retirement benefits. It is submitted that, in the normal situation the withheld amount will be released after verifying the account of the retirement person so as to see the dues if any. This process will take maximum time of 3 to 6 months, thereafter it will be intimated to the concerned retired person. It is stated that, the Complainant did not receive any communication from the Accounts General of Karnataka, addressed a letter dated 31.3.2009 to the Accounts General, Bangalore to release the withheld amount of Rs.10,000/-. For the said letter the Accounts General Bangalore replied that the amount was released on 23.2.2007 and asked the complainant to approach the Sub-Treasury Officer, Puttur. It is submitted that, when the complainant has enquired with the Sub-Treasurer Officer Puttur. It is came to know that the 1st Opposite Party has sent the payment order to the 2nd Opposite Party on 5.4.2007 itself and the same is to be transferred to the 3rd Opposite Party. When the Complainant asked with the 3rd Opposite Party, it is stated by the 3rd Opposite Party that they have not received any pay order from the 2nd Opposite Party. Thereafter, the Complainant issued a legal notice dated:20.11.2009 to all the Opposite Parties. It is stated that, the Opposite Parties are duty bound to pay the DCRG amount to the complainant and they have failed to do so and the quality and the manner of the service rendered by the Opposite Parties are bad and due to the wanton and deliberate negligent act of the Opposite Parties, the Complainant was put to monetary loss apart from the mental agony and inconvenience. Hence, the above complaint is filed by the Complainant before this Forum under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (herein after referred to as ‘the Act’) seeking direction from this Forum to the Opposite Parties to pay Rs.10,000/- to the Complainant along with interest at 10% per annum from 5.4.2007 and till payment and claimed compensation and cost of the proceedings.
2. Version notice served to the Opposite Parties by RPAD. Opposite Parties appeared through their counsel filed separate versions.
Wherein, the Opposite Party No.1 submitted that the amount of Rs.10,000/- was released by the Accountant General, Bangalore as per order dated 23.2.2007 and forwarded to the Corporation Bank, Puttur Branch through Opposite Party No.2 for payment to the complainant as per the proceedings No.TRSY/PE2T4/1819/2006-07. The Manager, Corporation Bank, Puttur as per their letter dated 14.1.2009 informed that the DCRG (Death Cum Retirement Gratuity) order has been misplaced at his instance and requested to issue a duplicate order for payment of DCRG. Accordingly, the Opposite Party No.3 has been asked to send the last and non-payment certificate relating to the withheld DCRG and the same was forwarded to A.G. Bangalore, with a request to issue duplicate DCRG. The Accountant General, Bangalore as per order 20.11.2009 issued duplicate DCRG and to make payment to the Complainant and subsequently it has informed that the withheld amount has been paid to the complainant on 19.12.2009. The amount of Rs.10,000/- was paid on 19.12.2009 before filing this complaint and contended that there is no deficiency and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
Opposite Party No.2 and 3 filed common version and stated that Opposite Party No.3 came to know the non-payment of the DCRG amount of Rs.10,000/- to the Complainant in the month of June 2009. Subsequently Opposite party No.3 has written a letter to the Opposite No.1 dated 10.6.2009 requesting for DCRG copy so as to enable to pay the amount. Opposite Party No.3 has received the order through Opposite Party No.2 vide their letter dated 17.12.2009 and disbursed the amount to the Complainant’s Account on 19.12.2009 and stated that there is no lapse on the part of the Opposite Party No.2 and 3 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this case are as under:
- Whether the Complainant proves that the Opposite Parties committed deficiency in service?
- If so, whether the Complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed?
- What order?
4. In support of the complaint, Sri Venkatramana Bhat. (CW1) filed affidavit reiterating what has been stated in the complaint and answered the interrogatories served on him. Ex C1 to C6 were produced for the Complainant as listed in the annexure. Opposite Party No.1 filed version and not led any evidence. One Sri K.Nithyananda Shetty, Manager of the Opposite Party No.3. (RW1) filed counter affidavit and answered the interrogatories served on him. Ex R1 to R4 were produced for the Opposite Parties as listed in the annexure. Both Parties are produced notes of arguments.
We have considered the notes/oral arguments submitted by the learned counsels and also considered the materials that was placed before the Forum and answer the points are as follows:
Point No.(i): Affirmative.
Point No.(ii) & (iii): As per the final order.
REASONS
5. POINTS NO. (i) to (iii):
The facts which are not in dispute is that, the Complainant is a retired teacher retired from his service on 31.7.2006. At the time of retirement the Education Department has withheld Rs.10,000/- as the Death Cum Retirement Gratuity (herein after referred as “DCRG”) from his retirement benefits. It is also not in dispute that, in the normal situation the withheld amount will be released after verifying the account of the retired person so as to see dues if any, the process will take maximum time of 3 to 6 months. Thereafter, it will be intimated to the concerned retired person.
Now the dispute before this Forum is that, the Complainant alleged that the he did not receive any communication from the Accounts General of Karnataka with regard to withheld of Rs.10,000/- towards the DCRG from his retirement benefits and thereafter the complainant addressed a letter dated 31.3.2009 to the Accounts General Bangalore to release the amount, for that the Account General has replied stated that the amount has been released on 23.2.2007 and asked the Complainant to approach the Sub-Treasury Officer of Puttur and thereafter the Complainant came to know that the 1st Opposite Party already released amount on 23.2.2007. But the Complainant not received the above amount from the Opposite Party No.2 and 3. Hence this complaint.
The Opposite Party No.1, 2 and 3 interalia contended that there is no deficiency on their part.
In support of the Complainant’s case, the Complainant himself filed affidavit by way of evidence as CW-1 and produced EX C1 to C6 and Opposite Parties also filed evidence and produced Ex.R1 to R4.
On considering the material evidence on record, wherein, we find that, the Complainant is a retired teacher, retired from his service on 31.7.2006 and it is also seen that Rs.10,000/- as DCRG was withheld so as to see the dues if any. In the given case, the Opposite Party No.1 i.e. Accounts General, Bangalore released the amount of Rs.10,000/- on 23.2.2007. However, the letter addressed by the Treasury Officer, D.K. District Mangalore i.e. Ex.C6 and the version filed by the Opposite Party No.1 and also the admission made by the Opposite Party No.2 and 3 proved beyond doubt that the Accounts General Bangalore has released the amount as per their order dated 23.2.2007 and forwarded to the Corporation Bank, Puttur for payment to the Complainant on 5.4.2007. The above said evidence on record has not challenged by the Opposite Party No.2 and 3 i.e. Corporation Bank, Puttur and Mangalore.
However, the Opposite Party No.2 and 3 contended that they have misplaced the original order dated 23.2.2007 of the Accountant General, Bangalore and they could not credit the balance to the Complainant’s account. The admission made by the Corporation Bank i.e. Opposite Party No.2 and 3 is very clear that they have received the pay order sent by the Accounts General Bangalore, but they have taken a defence that the same was misplaced. That itself shows that there is a lapse on the part of the Corporation Bank i.e. Opposite Party No.2 and 3. The Opposite Parties being a nationalized bank misplacing the public document and thereafter when the consumer files a complaint or approaches the Court of Law coming forward with a defence that they have misplaced the document itself shows their negligence as well as the responsibility towards the customers/herein the Complainant. Misplacing of the public document itself is a lapse on the part of the Opposite Party Bank. On the other hand, the Opposite Party Bank i.e. Corporation Bank failed to take any steps to pursue the documents misplaced by them till the receipt of the legal notice sent by the Complainant. The Opposite Party Bank (Corporation Bank) should have deposited the amount soon after the receipt of the pay order from the concerned department. But no such attempts were made nor taken steps with regard to the misplace of the pay order, which amounts to deficiency in service.
We further find that, the Opposite Party No.2 and 3 submitted that they have deposited the amount on 19.12.2009 and produced the copy of the ledger extracts of the Complainant’s account i.e. Ex.R4. Now the point for consideration is that, admittedly the original pay order sent by the Opposite Party No.1 on 5.4.2007 to the Corporation Bank, Mangalore Branch, the said amount was paid to the Complainant after more than one and half years that also without considering interest on the original amount of Rs.10,000/-. Because of the lapse on the part of the officials of the Opposite Party Bank i.e. Corporation Bank, the Complainant lost the interest on the above said amount and also put to inconvenience in this case. Under that circumstances, we hold that there is a deficiency on the part of the Opposite Party No.2 and 3 i.e. Corporation Bank. Therefore, both are jointly and severally directed to pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation to the Complainant towards the personal inconvenience and the loss of interest on the said amount. And also pay Rs.1,000/- as cost of the proceedings. Payment shall be made within 30 days from the date of this order.
In the present case there is no deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party No.1. Hence the complaint against Opposite Party No.1 is hereby dismissed.
6. In the result, we pass the following:
ORDER
The complaint is allowed. The Opposite Party No.2 and 3 i.e. Corporation Bank represented by its Manager jointly and severally directed to pay Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) as compensation to the Complainant. Further Rs.1,000/- awarded as cost of the litigation expenses. Payment shall be made within 30 days from the date of this order.
The complaint against Opposite Party No.1 is hereby dismissed.
On failure to pay the aforementioned amount within the stipulated period as mentioned above the Opposite Parties are directed to pay interest at 10% per annum on the total amount from the date of failure till the date of payment.
The copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and therefore the file be consigned to record.
(Page No.1 to 11 dictated to the Stenographer typed by him, revised and pronounced in the open court on this the 17th day of June 2010.)
PRESIDENT MEMBER
(SMT. ASHA SHETTY) (SMT. LAVANYA M.RAI)
ANNEXURE
WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT:
CW1 – Sri Venkatramana Bhat. – Complainant.
DOCUMENTS PRODUCED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT:
Ex C1 – 31.3.2009: Letter addressed by the Complainant to A.G. Bangalore with endorsement.
Ex C2 – 24.1.2009: Copy of the letter addressed by A.G. Bangalore to B.E.O. Puttur.
Ex C3 – 20.11.2009: O/c of Regd. Lawyer’s Notice.
Ex C4 – 21/11/2009:)
Ex C5 – 21/11/2009:) Postal Acknowledgments of 2nd and 3rd Opposite Party (2 in numbers.
Ex C6 – 25/11/2009: Reply of the 1st Opposite Party.
WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY:
RW1 – Sri K.Nithyananda Shetty, Manager of the Opposite Party No.3.
DOCUMENTS PRODUCED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY:
Ex R1 –26.10.2009: Copy of letter from Opposite Party No.2 to Opposite Party No.1.
Ex R2 – 17.11.2009: Copy of letter from Opposite Party No.3 to Opposite Party No.1.
Ex R3 – 17.12.2009: Copy of letter from Opposite Party No.2 to Opposite Party No.3.
Ex R4 – 8.2.2010: Ledger extract of the Complainant’s Account Statement.
Dated: 17.6.2010 PRESIDENT
