Kerala

StateCommission

A/15/394

SURAJ M V - Complainant(s)

Versus

MANAGER SOUTH INDIAN BANK - Opp.Party(s)

UNNIKRISHNAN V

18 Jul 2016

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

COMMISSION, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 

APPEAL NO.394/2015

JUDGMENT DATED 18/7/2016

  (Appeal filed against the order in C.C No.376 /2010 dt . on the file of CDRF,Thrissur)

 

PRESENT:

SMT. A. RADHA                                      :         MEMBER

SHRI. K. CHANDRADAS NADAR           :        JUDICIAL MEMBER

SHRI. V.V. JOSE                                      :        MEMBER

APPELLANTS:

1.  Suraj M.V., S/o Velu M.S.,

Mariyakkattil House, Olarikkara,

P.O. Pullazhi, Thrissur-12.

          2.  Akshay Kumar K Thankachan,

               Keezhthottathil House, Mullakkara,

     P.O. Mannuthy, Thottappady,

     Thrissur District.

(By Adv:  Unnikrishnan.V)                    

                        Vs

RESPONDENTS:

1.  Manager, The South Indian Bank,

 East Fort Branch, Thrissur.

 

2.  Chairman, The South Indian Bank,

 P.B.No.28, T.B. Road, Mission Quarters,

 Thrissur-680 001.

     (By Adv:  R.S. Mohanan Nair)  

 

JUDGMENT

SMT. A. RADHA  :  MEMBER

          Dis-satisfied by the dismissal order in C.C No.376/2010 on the file of CDRF, Thrissur the complainants came up in appeal.

          2.  The case of the complainants are that the 2^nd complainant who was trying for a job at Bombay  got an offer of appointment as Radio Officer in Shipping Corporation of India.  The 1^st complainant is the uncle of the 2^nd complainant.  In order to join the shipping corporation on 3^rd August 2009 the complainant had to obtain police verification report from his native place.  The intimation to join the Shipping Corporation was received on 31^st July.  As the complainant had to obtain the police verification report in time the 2^nd complainant had to fly from Bombay.  The 2^nd complainant was in need of money to purchase the flight ticket and on 31/7/2009 an amount of Rs.4,000/-  was remitted from the 1^st complainant’s account.  It is after enquiry with the 1^st opposite party that the amount would be received immediately, the amount was remitted.  The 2^nd complainant had not received the amount in time.  The 2^nd complainant could not travel from Bombay and next day being Sunday the complainant could not submit the police verification in prescribed time which resulted in the loss of job. The complainant  received  the  money  only  on  1^st  August  by 10.48 am.  The

 

 

police verification report received only by 3^rd August evening and the 2^nd complainant could reach Bombay on 4^th August morning.  In the meantime the Shipping Corporation discarded the request of the 2^nd complainant and appointed another person and thereafter the ship already left the Bombay port.  The complainants alleged that the non-transferring of the amount deposited by the 1^st complainant immediately to his account by the 1^st opposite party caused the loss of job which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.  The 2^nd complainant could not join the following 7 months and the complaint is filed for compensation of     Rs.1 Lakh and also for cost of proceedings. 

3.  Before the District Forum the opposite parties filed detailed version contending that the complainant is not maintaining any account with this opposite party though the 1^st complainant is maintaining a Savings Bank Account with Koorkkenchery Branch of the opposite party.  The complainants are not customers of this opposite party and the complainants have no locus-standi to file the complaint and the complaint is to be dismissed in-limine.  It is admitted that the 1^st complainant remitted an amount of Rs.4,000/- on 31/7/2009 by 4.50 pm in his account by ordinary remittance chalan and not in the fast money requisition form which is required for fast money transfer.  The amount was credited to the Head Office Account of the Bank and Koorkkenchery Branch of this opposite party posted the remittance to the account of the 1^st complainant on the very next day ie. on 1/8/2009 at 10.48 am.  It is stated in the complaint that ATM card issued to the 1^st complainant was given to the 2^nd complainant to withdraw the money from the account of the 1^st complainant while he was away from Bombay is not permissible and constitutes breach of terms of conditions governing the issuance of ATM cards, since the ATM card is to be kept by the account holder himself so also pin number is to be kept confidential.  Hence the withdrawal by ATM card by the 2^nd complainant is illegal.  The loss of job alleged by the 2^nd complainant is exclusively within the knowledge of the complainants and the opposite parties are not liable to pay any compensation.  There is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties and the complaint is filed without any bonafides.    

4.  The 1^st complainant filed proof affidavit and was examined as PW1 and documents were marked as Exbts: P1 to P7.  No oral evidence or documentary evidence on the part of opposite parties.  Based on the evidence and documents the District Forum dismissed the complaint which is challenged in this appeal.

          5.  The 1^st appellant is having a Savings Account with the Koorkkencherry Branch of the opposite party wherein the 1^st appellant remitted Rs.4,000/- at 4.50 pm in order to transfer the money to Bombay.  It is submitted that it is on assurance given by the Bank people that the amount would be immediately transferred to Bombay as there is facilities for online transfer.  Though the 1^st appellant remitted the money the 2^nd appellant could receive the money only on 1^rd August and he could travel thereafter only from Bombay Office to native place to obtain police verification report.  Due to the delay in remittance of the amount the 2^nd appellant could not reach in time with the police verification report on 3^rd itself.  It is stated in the complaint that the 2^nd appellant reached on 4^th August with the police verification report which could not be submitted before the Shipping Corporation for joining as Radio Operator.  Due to shortage of money the 2^nd appellant could obtain the police clearance certificate on 3^rd August which is clear from Exbt: P5.  Due to the            non-production of the certificate in time the 2^nd appellant lost his job which amounts to the deficiency in service on the part of the respondents and the 2^nd appellant sustained financial loss.  The delay in remittance of Rs.4,000/- on the day of remittance resulted in the loss of  job and also financial loss.  The appellants claim Rs.1 Lakh along with cost from the respondents.

          6.  It is argued by the respondent’s counsel that the 2^nd appellant is not a consumer of the respondents.  It is admitted that the 1^st appellant is having his SB Account with Koorkkencherry Branch of this opposite party.  It is also admitted that on 31/7/2009 the 1^st appellant remitted Rs.4,000/- by 4.50 pm in the East Fort Branch who is the 1^st respondent in this case.  The 1^st appellant  handed over the ATM Card to 2^nd  Appellant to withdraw the money.  It is submitted by the counsel that the ATM Card and the pin is to be kept confidential and it is not permitted to hand over to anybody as per the terms and conditions of the bank.  The 1^st appellant had made the remittance on ordinary remittance of chalan.  The remitted amount was credited to the Head Office Account of the Koorkkencherry Branch of the opposite party which was posted for remittance to the account of the 1^st appellant.  It is also submitted that the amount was transferred by 10.48 am on 01/08/2009 which is the earlier time possible by the respondents.  Hence no deficiency in service can be attributed upon the respondents in this case.  The 2ndappellant had not produced any documents with regard to the appointment as alleged in the complaint.  Nothing is brought out in evidence that the financial loss caused due to delay in remittance of the amount by the respondents.  Hence the appellants are not entitled for any compensation claimed in the complaint.

          7.  We have heard both sides in detail and had gone through the available evidence.  In the instant case the allegation of the complainant with regard to the delay in getting the money at Bombay from the account of 1^st appellant resulted in the loss of job was not proved properly.  Nothing is on evidence to prove that the 2^nd appellant was denied of the job due to the delay in submission of the police verification report.  The 1^st appellant is having a savings account with another branch of this opposite party and the amount was credited on ordinary Chalan form and that too at 4.50 pm on 31/7/2009.  It is also admitted that the amount was received on 1/8/2009 by 10.48 am and we find no deficiency in service or any delay of remittance by the respondent.  In the absence of evidence to prove the loss of job caused due to the delay in receiving the money cannot be attributed as a deficiency in service.

          In the result, appeal is dismissed and the complaint also stands dismissed.

The office is directed to send a copy of this order to the Forum Below along with LCR.

 

 A. RADHA            :       MEMBER

 

 

 K. CHANDRADAS NADAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

 

V.V. JOSE                             :        MEMBER

 

Sa.

 

 

 

     KERALA STATE CONSUMER

               DISPUTES REDRESSAL

COMMISSION, SISUVIHAR LANE,

VAZHUTHACAUD   

                           THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

 

 

 

 

 

APPEAL NO.394/2015

JUDGMENT DATED 18/7/2016

 

 

 

 

 

Sa.