KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
VAZHUTHACAUD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
CC.NO.23/09
JUDGMENT DATED 25.06.2013
PRESENT
SHRI.K.CHANDRADAS NADAR -- JUDICIAL MEMBER
SMT. A RADHA -- MEMBER
S. Sunil Kumar,
Alayil, Mayyanad. P.O., -- COMPLAINANT
Kollam 691303
(By Adv. Sri. Kishore. P)
V/s.
The Manager,
Federal Bank (Near Irom Bridge) -- OPP.PARTIES
Kollam Main, Kollam.
(By Adv. Sri.S.Reghukumar)
JUDGMENT
SHRI.K.CHANDRADAS NADAR,JUDICIAL MEMBER
The complainant is the holder of SB account in the Kollam main branch of the opposite party/Federal Bank. The grievance alleged by the complainant is that he had deposited Rs.94,000/- in his SB account on 21.8.09 and got seal affixed in the counter foil. This counterfoil is the only available proof for the remittance given to the complainant from the bank. The complainant is engaged in the business of share trading. He issued a cheque for Rs.90,000/- in favour of ‘cap stock’ a share broking company, bearing date 22.9.09. ‘Cap stock’ informed the complainant after one week that the cheque issued in their favour was dishonoured. Then the complainant came to know that the remittance was not credited in his SB account. On enquiry, he came to know that the opposite party had realized a big amount as penalty for the dishonoured cheque. The complainant approached the opposite party and showed the counter foil. They said that no cash entry was made on the said day. The complainants sent complaint to the General Manager and Chairman of the opposite party by speed post, but he received no reply. Hence he filed complaint before the Banking Ombudsman. Though he received reply that enquiry would be made nothing transpired. Hence the complaint claiming compensation of Rs.20 lakhs towards loss in the share trading business, refund of Rs.94,000/- and Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony.
The opposite party filed version in which the following contentions are raised. The complainant is not a consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act. He has committed fraud, cheating and manipulation of documents. In the counter foil of the remittance, the complainant has deceptively put the date as 22.8.09 and in the remittance slip he has recorded the correct date as 03.09.09. A remittance of Rs.400/- alone was made on 3.9.09. No remittance at all was made by him on 21.8.09. The claim that business with the amount, in the share market would have fetched him a profit of Rs.20 lakhs itself shows that he is doing substantial business in share market on a commercial scale. Hence he cannot be termed as a consumer. He has lodged an inflated claim. It is further contended that on 31.8.09 the complainant approached the bank and remitted Rs.5500/- in cash. On the said day itself he was made aware that there was no payment on 21.8.09 and that the cheque submitted by him was dishonourd for insufficiency of fund in his account. The balance amount in his account as on 24.8.09 was debit to the tune of Rs.174/-. When he deposited Rs.5500/- on 31.8.09, an amount of Rs.174/- as adjusted towards debit balance and then he had a credit balance of Rs.5326/- as on that day. No manipulation in the accounts of a customer is possible as the bank has a centrally administered software and the accounting is fully computerized. The counter foil produced along with the complaint clearly reveals that the stamp of the Federal Bank is dated 3.9.09 and not 21.8.09. The complainant tendered the counter foil in the open court and the same was kept in safe custody. The complainant has manipulated the entries in the counterfoil and this is evident from the remittance slip dated 3.9.09. Actually the complainant’s intention was to cheat the opposite party to make unlawful gain. The complaint failed before the ombudsman was closed on 11.12.09. The claim for Rs.21,46,075/- is made alleging false facts. The allegation that the opposite party would credit payments only after 15 days after effecting remittances is false. The complainant has no cause of action and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
On the above pleadings the points that arise for determination are:-
1. Whether the complainant had infact remitted an amount of Rs.94,000 on 21.8.09 as claimed by him?
2. If actually the said remittance was made has the complainant suffered the loss as claimed by him?
3. What are the reliefs if any to be granted to the complainant?
POINT NO.1:-
Admittedly, the complainant maintains saving bank account No.10190120195954 in the opposite party branch of the Federal Bank. The grievance of the complainant is that he had made a remittance of Rs.94,000/- on 21.8.79 in the said account . The said remittance is missing and as a result a cheque for Rs.90,000/- issued by him bearing date 22.9.09 in favour of ‘cap stock’ a share broking company was dishonoured causing loss to him. The said allegation is refuted by the opposite party and it is contended that the complainant made no remittance at all on 21.8.09. He had remitted an amount of Rs.400/- on 3.9.09 and the counterfoil issued at that time is manipulated and forged to show a remittance of Rs.94,000/- and made the basis of the complainant. So, the simple question is whether the claim of the complainant or the contention of the opposite party is true. Ext.A1 is the counter foil produced by the complainant in order to support his allegations. In Ext.A1 the date 21 and the month 8 (August) are clear. But there is some manipulation in the year mentioned. The contention of the opposite party is that the complainant passed on the counterfoil without putting any date and later has written the date 21.8. The year of the transaction is not in dispute. It is seen that a remittance of Rs.94,000/- is written in Ext.A1. The details of the remittance are also mentioned. It is mentioned that 50 Thousand rupee notes, 80 five hundred rupee notes and 40 hundred rupee notes were remitted in cash making the total amount of Rs.94,000/-. The counter foil bears the seal of the opposite party bank but the date of remittance in the seal is not legible. This remittance slip perse is not inconsistent with the plea of the opposite party that Ext.A1 is a forged one. If as a matter of fact remittance of only Rs.400 was made and date was left blank remittance of Rs.400/- can easily be altered to remittance of 94000/- by making entries at the relevant place. The opposite party produced Ext.B6 main foil of a remittance dated 2.7.09 made by the complainant in the opposite party bank as per which the remittance of Rs.82,000/- was made in order to show that the practice alleged by the complainant that the opposite party usually credits a deposit only after about 15 is not true. The complainant has produced Ext.A5 series of counter foils to contend that it is the practice of the bank to credit deposits after expiry of about 15 days. But all the deposits evidenced by Ext.A5 series are made by the complainant in other branches of the opposite party bank. When examined as PW1, the clear suggestion to PW1 was that since the officers of the opposite party branch were aware of the practice of the complainant of making remittance without putting date in the counter foil, he made remittance as per Ext.A5 series in other branches. He has manipulated the dates in those counter foils also. The complainant deposed that no bank would accept remittances without putting the dates. No doubt that is the ideal situation supported by banking practice and law. But as a matter of fact often during rush hours at least, the officers of the bank over look the details in the main foilS of remittance and in the counter foils without any serious concern about possible manipulations. So this circumstance projected by the complainant appears to be not decisive. The fact that no remittance is seen as per the statement of accounts and other documents produced by the opposite party is also a fact that is by itself not decisive.
The opposite party relied on Exts.B1 and B1(a) remittances made by the complainant in the opposite party bank to prove that it is the practice of the complainant that he would not put date even in the main foil of the remittance slip. This is a significant circumstance. So also the following circumstance appears to be crucial in deciding the truth of the dispute. While affixing the seal in the main foil of remittance dated 3.9.09 it is seen affixed in such a way that the upper left corner of the seal fell on the counter foil also. The said main foil is produced and marked in evidence as Ext.B7. Ext. B7 bears remittance date as 3.9.09 and on the said day Rs.400/- only was remitted. While Ext.B7 shows that the date of remittance was actually put in the main foil, it is not inconsistent with an intention of the part of the complainant to manipulate the counter foil of the said remittance. It is very pertinent to notice that the missing upper left side corner of the seal on the main foil (Ext.B7) is seen on the exact place of the counter foil of (Ext.A1). This clearly supports the contention of the opposite party that the complainant subsequently manipulated Ext.A1 to foist the complaint.
The circumstance under which Ext.A1 came into custody of this Commission is also relevant. The complainant never produced Ext.A1 along with the complaint. On the contrary it appears that during one of the hearings, he took out this counter foil in open court. Immediately this Commission directed him to produce the document before the Commission and directed the office to keep the same in safe custody considering the importance of the document. It is also obvious from Ext.B7 that he had made remittance in the opposite party bank on 3.9.09. If as a matter of fact there were remittances on 21.8.09 and 3.9.09 he could have very well produced the counter foil dated 3.9.09 to disprove the contentions of the opposite party. This is not done. So the circumstances high-lighted during the last part of this discussion clearly prove that the complainants case that he made a remittance of Rs.94,000/- on 21.8.09is not true. The complaint is made without any foundation and no deficiency in service can be spelt out from the available evidence and circumstances in this case. The point is found accordingly.
POINT NO.2:-
The claim for compensation on account of loss in the share market can have any foundation only if the other allegation that the opposite party had failed to credit the remittance on 21.8.09 is true. As we have already held that the said remittance alleged is not true, the complainant is not entitled to claim any amount towards loss in business or towards mental agony. The amount he wanted to invest in share market is only Rs.90,000/-. So, that the sensex index showed an upward trend from 14850 to 18000 would not entitle the complainant to claim profit of Rs.20 lakhs. In any business there would be loss or profit and such exaggerated sums cannot be claimed on that basis also. Any way in view of the finding on point No.1 the complainant is not entitled to any compensation at all towards loss and mental agony.
POINT NO.3:-
From the conclusions arrived at while discussing point Nos.1&2, it is obvious that the complaint is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed with cost of Rs.10,000/- to the opposite party.
K.CHANDRADAS NADAR -- JUDICIAL MEMBER
A RADHA -- MEMBER
