Complaint presented on : 17.07.2013.
Order pronounced on : 20.01.2015
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)
Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai – 600 003
PRESENT : THIRU. B. RAMALINGAM, M.A.M.L., : PRESIDENT
THIRU.L. DEENDAYALAN, M.A.B.L., : MEMBER I
TMT.K. AMALA, M.A. L.L.B., : MEMBER II
C.C.No.262/2013
THIS TUESDAY , THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY – 2015
S. Gowtham,
Proprietor G.J. Tool,
S/o. V.Sekar,
Old No.11/2, New No.43,
Reddykuppam Salai,
Saidapet,
Chennai 600 015. :: Complainant.
.Vs.
1. K. Dillikumar,
CPIO, State Bank of India,
Region-V, NW-1, AV,
Chennai Zone-I,
No.86, Rajaji Salai,
Chennai 600 001.
2. The General Manager,
State Bank of India,
Local Head Office,
Circle top House,
No.16, College Lane,
Chennai 600 006.
3. Deputy General Manager,
Customer Service Department,
Corporate Centre, 16th Floor,
State Bank Bhavan,
Madame Cama Road,
Mumbai 400 021.
4. The Branch Manager,
SME Branch – SBI,
NO.5, Jawaharlal Nehru Road,
Ekkaduthangal,
Chennai 600 097.
5. The Operations Manager,
Rep. by Mr. Ponnusami,
SME Branch – SBI,
No.5, Jawaharlal Nehru Road,
Ekkaduthangal,
Chennai 600 097. :: Opposite Parties.
For the complainant : M/s. Vedavallikumar & others.
For the opposite parties : M/s. S.Natarajan (Exparte)
ORDER
THIRU. L. DEENADAYALAN, MEMBER-I.
Complaint under section 12 (1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for a direction to the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for deficiency in service and to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards compensation for mental pain and sufferings and cost of the complaint to the complainant.
- The case of the complainant is briefly as follows:-
The complainant was running a firm in the name and style of “G.J. Tool”. The complainant had a current account in the 4th and 5th opposite party’s bank branch, State Bank of India. The complainant had gone to the bank branch at Ekkaduthangal on 9.4.2013 to deposit a self cheque worth Rs.50,000/- in his account in the bank. To his shock and surprise, the 5th opposite party refused to receive the cheque. When asked the reason for refusing the cheque, the 5th opposite party stated that the signature was not matching. The complainant also stated that he was the proprietor of the company and also stated that he would sign in front of the 5th opposite party. The complainant did not know why the 5th opposite party refused the cheque. The complainant even requested the 5th opposite party to verify the ledger or photo in the system to be convinced but still the 5th opposite party refused to pass the cheque. On 9.4.2013, since the 5th opposite party refused to honour the self cheque for an amount of Rs.50,000/- the complainant had to return the bank empty handed. Since the complainant was in dire need of funds for business commitment, he had to withdraw the same through three different transactions from Automatic Teller Machine. Aggrieved over the attitude and irresponsibility of the 5th opposite party, the complainant gave a complaint to the 2nd opposite party by way of fax narrating the issue by also attaching the refused cheque. There was no response and again on 11.4.2013 and 15.4.2013, the complainant sent e.mails to remind the 2nd opposite party regarding the complaint as no action was taken nor any reply or explanation was given by the bank. The 1st opposite party bank in its reply stated that the branch did not receive any e.mail sent by the complainant whereas the complainant had an acknowledgment from the branch regarding the same issue on 17.4.2013. The complaint dt. 9.4.2013 had been addressed to the 2nd opposite party which had forwarded the same to the customer service. The 3rd opposite party had also communicated to the complainant about the registration of the complaint that it had been forwarded to the 4th opposite party immediate redressal. Hence the above act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service.
- Even after receipt of notice, the opposite parties did not appear before this Forum and did not file any written version and therefore the opposite parties were set exparte. The complainant filed a proof affidavit. Ex.A1 to Ex.A11 were marked on the side of the complainant.
3. The points that arise for consideration are as follows:-
1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of
the opposite parties?
2) To what relief the complainant is entitled to?
4. Point No.1:-
Ex.A3 is the copy of the complaint dt. 9.4.2013 along with copy of the cheque. Ex.A4 is the copy of the ATM Withdrawal slip dated 9.4.2013. Ex.A6 is the copy of the Acknowledgment sent by the 3rd opposite party dated 17.4.2013. Ex.A9 is the copy of statement of accounts for the month of April 2013.
5. At the outset, on perusal of Exhibits A3, A6 and A9, we find that the complainant had availed the services of the opposite parties for “commercial purpose” . Perusal of the cheque (Ex.A3) would show that the cheque was in the name of the company “G.J. Tool”. Perusal of the letter from the 3rd opposite party (Ex.A6) would also show that the letter was addressed to the company’s name viz. M/s G.J. Tool. Perusal of Statement of Accounts (Ex.A9) would also show that the account was in the name of the company “G.J. Tool”. At para4 of the complaint, the complainant himself had stated as follows:
“ He was in dire need of funds for business commitment”
At para8 of the complaint, the complainant himself had stated as follows:
“Because of the act of the 5th opposite party, the complainant could not finish his urgent business transactions “
6. The above clearly shows that the complainant had availed the services of the opposite parties for commercial purpose only. Therefore, the complainant is not a consumer as per Sec.2 (1) (d) (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. In the above circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the complaint is not maintainable before this Forum. The point is answered accordingly.
7. Point No.2:-
The complaint is dismissed. No costs. However, the complainant is at liberty to file civil suit. The time spent by the complainant before this Forum is excluded for the purpose of limitation under Sec.14 of The Limitation Act.
In the result, the complaint deserves no merit and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the complaint is dismissed. No costs.
Dictated directly by the President to the Steno-Typist, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the Member-1 and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 20th day of January 2015
MEMBER-I MEMBER-II PRESIDENT
Complainant Documents:-
Ex.A1- 21.3.2012 - Copy of complaint given by the complainant’s father to the
2nd opposite party.
Ex.A2- 22.3.2012 - Copy of E.mails and correspondences sent between the
Complainant’s father and the opposite party.
Ex.A3- 9.4.2013 - Copy of the complaint along with the cheque.
Ex.A4- 9.4.2013 - Copy of ATM Withdrawal slips.
Ex.A5- 17.4.2013 - Copy of Paper Publication in Tamil Daily.
Ex.A6- 17.4.2013 - Copy of Acknowledgment sent by the 3rd opposite party.
Ex.A7- 18.4.2013 - Copy of notice sent by the complainant’s father under RI Act.
Ex.A8- 22.4.2013 - Copy of Reply sent by the 1st opposite party to the
complainant’s Father.
Ex.A9- April’13 - Copy of Statement of accounts for the Month April 2013.
Ex.A10-2.5.2013 - Copy of Notice sent by the complainant’s father under RI Act.
Ex.A11- 24.5.2013 - Copy of reply sent by the 1st opposite party to the
complainant’s Father.
Opposite parties Document:- - Nil -
MEMBER-I MEMBER-II PRESIDENT.
