COMPLAINT FILED: 31.01.2009 <br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> 22nd SEPTEMBER 2009<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. B.S. REDDY PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO.287/2009<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANTS 1. K.Majundhar,<br /> S/o Late S.A. Krishnappa,<br /> Aged about 48 years,<br /> R/at Padarahalli Village,<br /> C/o H.Papanna,<br /> S/o Late Huccha Bhovi,<br /> Kasaba Hobli, Harisandra Post,<br /> Ramanagara Taluk,<br /> Ramanagara.<br /> <br /> Rep: by his Next Friend <br /> Smt. H.Roopa,<br /> W/o K.Majundhar,<br /> Aged about 26 years,<br /> R/at Padarahalli Village,<br /> C/o H.Papanna,<br /> S/o Late Huccha Bhovi,<br /> Kasaba Hobli, Harisandra Post,<br /> Ramanagara Taluk,<br /> Ramanagara.<br /> <br /> 2. Smt. Jayalakshmamma,<br /> Aged about 78 years,<br /> W/o Late S.A. Krishnappa,<br /> No.4, 2nd Main, 2nd Cross,<br /> Venkatadri Layout,<br /> B.G. Road,<br /> Bangalore – 560 076.<br /> <br /> Advocate: Sri N.Krupakara <br /> <br /> V/s.<br /> OPPOSITE PARTIES 1. The Karnataka Bank,<br /> Represented by its <br /> Senior Manager,<br /> Wilson Garden Branch,<br /> Bangalore – 560 027.<br /> <br /> 2. Suresh Naik, Major,<br /> Father Name not known to <br /> Complainant,<br /> Manager, <br /> Karnataka Bank, <br /> Wilson Garden,<br /> Bangalore – 560 027.<br /> <br /> 3. Udaya Shankar Karanth,<br /> Major, Father name not known <br /> to Complainant,<br /> Senior Staff,<br /> Assistant Manager,<br /> Karnataka Bank, <br /> Wilson Garden,<br /> Bangalore – 560 027.<br /> <br /> Advocate: Sri Y.V.Parthasarthy<br /> <br /> 4. K.Vijay Kumar,<br /> S/o S.A.Krishnappa,<br /> Aged about 54 years,<br /> Reddy Building,<br /> Near BTS Hostel Building,<br /> Chandapura, Anekal road,<br /> A.D.Agarahara,<br /> Bangalore – 560 030.<br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complainant filed this complaint U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986, seeking direction to the Opposite Parties (herein after called as O.Ps) for refund of sum of Rs.8,00,000/- with 18% interest, to cancel the FD and SB accounts without obtaining the signatures of OP No.4 and to award damages for deficiency of service and compensation by OP No.1 to 3 jointly and severally. <br /> 2. The brief averments to be stated as per the complaint are OP-1 is bank, OP-2 is the manager, OP-3 is the Assistant Manager of the said bank and OP-4 is the brother of complainant No.1 and elder son of complainant No.2. He is holding a joint account with complainant No.1 and 2. An amount of Rs.8,00,000/- was deposited in OP-1 bank on 18.06.2004. The FD receipts and original pass book of SB account No.24692 is in possession of OP-4 and OPs 1 to 3 have not given the duplicate copy of FD receipt. The said SB account 24692 and FD account No.137780 were opened as joint accounts in the name of complainant No.1, 2 and OP-4. Quarterly interest earned on FD account was credited to the SB account No.24692. OP-4 colluded with OP-3 and without obtaining the signature of complainant No.2 withdrawn money from SB account to the tune of Rs.25,000/- and Rs.15,000/- and used that money for his personal expenses without giving single rupee to the complainant No.1 to meet his family necessities. Complainant No.1 demanded OP-4 to provide house hold articles but OP-4 refused to provide the same. Complainant No.1 approached his advocate and visited OP-1 bank and enquired about the withdrawal of complainant No.1’s money and the OP-3 stated that though it is a joint account which needed three persons signatures to withdraw the money, two persons signature was sufficient to withdraw the money. Thereafter the complainants and their advocate suggested OP-3 to obtain the signatures of complainants and to pass the withdrawal slip for a sum of Rs.1,55,000/-. Thereafter the complainants along with their advocate used to visit OP-1 bank and were withdrawing money from SB account. Complainant No.1 withdrawn sum of Rs.1,55,000/- and repaid Rs.1,25,000/- to the persons from whom borrowed it from his friends. Further he has withdrawn money on 23.04.2008 of Rs.10,000/-, on 18.07.2008 Rs.30,000/- and on 28.10.2008 Rs.20,000/-. OP No.3 and 4 colluded with each other and OP-3 refused to make payment for Rs.20,000/- on 22.01.2009 and has issued endorsement stating that to honour the said withdrawal slip signature of three joint account holders was necessary. OP-3 has acted according to instructions of OP-4 for the reason that the complainant No.1 had filed PCR No.10544 before the 4th Additional ACMM Court against OP-4, J.P. Nagar Police registered crime No.483/08. OP-4 has instructed OP-3 not to pass withdrawal slip which may be presented by complainants. OP-3 refused to make payment stating that OP-4 has to put a signature on the withdrawal slip for Rs.20,000/-. Nothing presented OP-1 to 3 to make payment of Rs.20,000/-, for the reason that they were making payments regularly by obtaining only two signatures of the complainants. Complainant No.1 is a person of lack of wordily knowledge as declared in OS No.5038/91, he is married and his wife has given birth to a baby girl on 22.01.2009 he needs the interest money from the OP-1 bank to meet his family and medical expenses. OP-4 who is the brother of complainant No.1 is receiving the rents of two flats owned by complainant No.1. OP-2 and 3 jointly and severally liable for the losses, damages and consequences. <br /> <br /> 3. OP 1 and 2 filed joint version contending that complaint is not maintainable, the complainant No.2 and OP-4 have been appointed as guardians of complainant No.1 in OS 5038/91. The bank insisted for the signature of OP-4 to withdrawal slip to make payment. This having not been done, the bank refused to pay. There is interse dispute among complainants 1 and 2 and OP-4 relating to FD and SB account. That dispute is sought to be settled by filing the present complaint which is not permissible. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the OP-1 to 3. OP-4 has instructed the bank not to make payment without his signature as admitted in para 16 of the complaint. The bank acted in terms of mandate / instructions of the account holders. The complaint is to be dismissed with exemplary costs. <br /> <br /> 4. OP-3 filed version adopting version filed by 1 and 2. It is denied that OP-3 colluded with OP-4 in refusing to pay the amount of Rs.20,000/- on 21.01.2009 on the withdrawal slip. OP-3 has issued a letter dated 02.12.2008 to OP-1 instructing not to make any payment without his signature from the joint account. Accordingly complainant is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs. <br /> <br /> 5. The next friend of complainant No.1 and OPs-2 and 3 filed affidavits and produced documents. Arguments on both sides heard. The points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under:<br /> <br /> Point No.1:- Whether the complainant has proved <br /> the deficiency in service on the part of<br /> the OPs 1 to 3?<br /> <br /> Point No.2:- If so, whether the complainants are <br /> entitled for the relief’s claimed?<br /> <br /> Point No.3:- To what Order?<br /> <br /> 6. Our findings to the above points are: <br /> <br /> Point No.1:- Negative. <br /> <br /> Point No.2:- Negative.<br /> <br /> Point No.3:- As per final Order. <br /> <br /> R E A S O N S<br /> <br /> 7. The complainant No.1 and OP-4 are the sons of complainant No.2. Complainant No.1 is represented by the his next friend wife as he is lack of wordily knowledge as declared in OS 5038/91 on the file of Civil City Court and complainant No.2 and OP-4 were appointed as guardians of complainant No.1 in that suit. OP-1 is a bank, OP-2 and 3 are the manager and assistant manager respectively of the said bank. It is not in dispute that an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- was deposited in OP-1 bank and FD account No.137780 was opened jointly in the name of complainants No.1 and 2 and OP-4. SB account No.24692 was also opened as joint account of these three persons. The quarterly interest accrued on the FD account used to be credited to SB account. OP-3 allowed complainants 1 and 2 to withdraw the amount from SB account on 23.02.2008, 23.04.2008, 18.07.2008 and 28.10.2008 without the signature of OP-4 for the withdrawal slips stating that only two persons signature would suffice. OP-4 has given letter on 02.12.2008 to OP-2 informing that withdrawals from SB account should be signed by all the three parties and not to pass any cheques without his signature in future. After receipt of this letter OP-3 has not allowed the complainant No.1 and 2 to withdraw the amount from SB account without the signature of joint account holder OP-4. On 22.01.2009 the complainants have submitted withdrawal slip for Rs.20,000/- without the signature of OP-4, OP-3 has refused to make payment and pass that withdrawal slip on the ground that the withdrawal slip is not signed by the OP-4. Merely because for some times when there was no dispute, the bank has allowed the complainants to withdraw certain amounts without the signature of OP-4 it cannot to be said that the bank should continue to honour the cheques of the complainants without the signature of the joint account holder OP-4. When OP-4 has specifically given a letter dated 02.12.2008 not to honour the cheques of the complainants to withdraw any amount from SB account without his signature, the bank has not allowed the complainants to draw the amount. Therefore we are of the view that the bank is justified in refusing to pay the amount on the basis of the withdrawal slip dated 22.01.2009 presented by the complainants without the signature of joint account holder OP-4. When the account is joint account all the account holders have to put their signatures for the withdrawal slips or cheques for withdrawing the amount from joint account. Therefore it cannot be said that there is any deficiency of service on the part of the OP-1 to 3. It appears there is an interse dispute between the complainants and OP-4 and a Civil Suit is already filed to get their rights declared. In the written argument submitted by the complainants they have clearly stated that the reliefs No.1 and 2 sought in the complaint are not pressed. Since there is no deficiency of service on the part of the OP-1 to 3, the complainants are not entitled for any damages or compensation. The complaint is devoid of merits, the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly we proceed to pass the following: <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint by the complainants is dismissed. In view of the nature of dispute no order as to costs. <br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 19th day of September 2009.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> Snm:<br /> <br />