By SRI.K. VIJAYAKUMARAN ACHARY, PRESIDENT.<br /> <br /> The averments in the complaint can be priefly summarized as follows:<br /> <br /> The complainant is an ATM account holder of the 1st opp.party towards the salary of the complainant due from the 2nd opp.party sum of Rs.14,998/- was deposited in the first opp.party Branch by the 2nd opp.party. Which is the usual practice the said bank credited the amount in the account of the complainant. On 7.4.2004 the complainant with his friends went to the 1st opp.party’s ATM counter, Kollam for drawing the amount said salary amount. But it was seen that the said amount was no amount in the account. The complainant became a sarcastic figure his friends and he would not purchased garments for his beloved parents. The 1st opp.party bank acted illegally in allowing the 2nd opp.party to draw the amount from the credit of the complainant’s account which is deficiency in service and violation of the provision of banking rules. Hence the complaint.<br /> <br /> The 1st opp.party filed a version contending interalia that the complaint is lnot maintainable either in law or on facts. The complaint is not maintainable before this Forum since this Forum lacks territorial jurisdiction. Both the opp.parties are having their office at Thiruvalla which is Pathanamthitta District . Merely because this opp.party has ATM counter at Kollam. The complainant is not entitled to file complaints at any place other than Thiruvalla where the 1st opp.party is carrying on business. The SB Account in the name of the complainant was opened at the instance of the 2nd opp.party which was for crediting the monthly salary due to the complainant from the 2nd opp.party. as instructed by the 2nd opp.party a sum of Rs.14998/- was credited to the SB account of the complainant on 5.4.04. On finding the same as a wrong instruction, the 2nd opp.party as per letter dated 6.4.2004 directed this opp.party to reverse the relative entry dated 5.4.2004 as the complainant is not eligible for the said salary credit from the 2nd opp.party. The allegation in para 3 of the complainant are false and hence denied. The wrong entry of Rs.14998/- in the complainant’s account and the subsequent withdrawal were intimated to the complainant by the 2ndopp.party in time. There is no collusion between the opp.parties in withdrawing the amount from the account of the complainant This opp.party has transferred the amount from the account of the complainant to the account of the 2nd opp.party only as per the specific instruction in writing from the 2nd opp.party. The allegation in para No.4 that the opp.party Bank acted illegally in allowing the 2nd opp.party to draw the amount from the credit of the complainant’s account are false and hence denied. The complainant had not suffered any serious damage, harassment or mental agony or monetary loss due to the act of the opp.party. The 2nd opp.party has no authority to withdraw the amount credited in the account of the complainant and the 1st opp.party acted against the basic principles of Banking Laws are all false and hence denied. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the first opp.party. Hence the first opp.party prays for dismiss the complaint with costs.<br /> <br /> The 2nd opp.party filed a separate version contending interalia that the complainant is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The complainant submitted an application to the principal, of second opp.party on 7.1.2004 for the post of Senior Lecturer in Urology Department attached to the medical college. After the interview process, he was selected and joined the department or Urology for duty on 16th January 2004. On 23.3.2004 he had applied to the principle through the head of department of Urology and the head of department of general surgery for 2 ½ months loss of pay leave from 16th April to 30th June 2004. The principal has commented that leave without allowance for 2 ½ months cannot be sanctioned because he had joined the post two months back in the service of the 2nd opp.party The complainant can resign with effect from 15.4.2004 but as per the terms of the 2nd opp.party and the service conditions of the society one months notice is necessary for a person to resign from the job. In the present case the complainant failed to issue one month notice to resign from his post and therefore he has to forgo one month salary. However if he joins back the department on 1st July 2004 then the retained salary can be paid back to him. The said comment of the principle was forwarded to the Executive Director for necessary action.. As per the rules of the 2nd opp.party one month salary shall be retained until he joins back after the entrance examination as claimed by him. Such an order was passed by the principle. While so the complainant submitted another application for resignation from his post by saying that he may be permitted to withdraw the application for long leave . The application was dated 30.3.2004. In the above circumstances the executive director passed an order that he may be relieved from duty from 1st May 2004. In the meanwhile on 6.4.2004 the Head of the department of urology through the head of the department of general surgery informed the Principal that the complainant had informed him on 6.4.2004 morning that he will not be coming for work from 6.4.2004 onwards. Thereafter the principal of the medical college passed the orders that one month salary has to be deducted. On 12.4.2004 an application for leave was received from the complainant dated 7.4.2004 stating that he has suffered from sprain ankle and cannot be attend duty for three weeks. In the application we are stated that he had been attending the regular duty till 6th May 2004. There are certain discrepancies in the application.. The attempt of the complainant is nothing an attempt against the medical ethics itself. A responsible person is bound to issue notice before leaving station. The absence of the doctor in station caused very serious inconvenience to the hospital administration, patients, etc. the contention in para 3 of the complaint are false and hence denied. The attempt of the complainant is nothing but an attempt to cheat the 2nd opp.party there is no deficiency in service on the party of the 2nd opp.party and hence prays for dismiss the complaint.<br /> <br /> <br /> The opp.party 3 and 4 for also filed a joined version with more or less identical contention of the 1st opp.party based on the contentions following. <br /> <br /> <br /> Points for consideration are:<br /> <br /> [1] Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opp.parties<br /> [ii] Reliefs and costs.<br /> <br /> <br /> For the complainant PW.1 is examined. Exts. P1 to P4 are marked<br /> <br /> For the opp.party DW.1 and 2 are examined. Ext. D1 to D6 are marked.<br /> <br /> Points [1]: The contention of the opp.party is that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint as the transaction has taken placed at Thiruvalla which is within the jurisdiction of Pathanamthitta Forum. It is not disputed that the opp.party one as a branch office at Kollam. It is also not in dispute that the above branch as a ATM counter at Kollam. The case of the complainant is that he admitted to withdraw the amount in his account with first opp.party through the above ATM counter. But to his surprise it was found that the above sum is not there in his account. It is to be noted that the who controversy leading to this complaint has arisen when the complainant admitted to withdraw the amount deposited by opp.party 2 part of the cause of action has arisen at Kollam. Therefore we are of <br /> considered view that this Forum has jurisdiction to entertain this complaint. Point found accordingly.<br /> <br /> Point II: As a matter of fact the contention of the complainant that the 2nd opp.party credited a sum of Rs.40988/- in the account of the complainant with the first opp.party on 5.4.2004 is not disputed. It is also not disputed that the above sum was reversed and withdrawn from the account of the complainant on 6.2.2004. Now the question whether opp.party 1 can divest the above sum from the account of the complainant to the account of the 2nd opp.party. Ones an amount is credited to the account an account holder in a bank. Even though such amount was credited at the instance of opp.party2 that amount cannot be withdraw and credited to the account of opp.party 2 without consent knowledge of the complainant. There is no case for opp.party 1 that the above sum was credited in the account of the complainant and due to any mistake. It is pertinent not that this amount was transferred from the account of the complainant on the request of the2nd opp.party can be seen from Ext.D1. No material was produced before us to show that the opp.party 2 has any right to apply for the transfer of the amount already credited in the account of the complainant and the 1st opp.party has any right for transferring the same. An amount credited in the account of the account holder by the bank cannot be transferred without knowledge and consent of the account holder shall be when such creating was due oversight by mistake. The amount herein credited in 5.2.2004 and the request the transfer the amount was forwarded on 6.4.2004 whatever the reason for applying for transfer of the amount the first opp.party has no right to transfer the amount without knowledge and consent of the complainant. The amount in the account a particular account holder can be transferred or withdrawn only at the instruction of that account holder. If there is any dispute regarding that amount or due to any amount. The bank can object the withdrawal of such sum but cannot transfer such sum to the account of another person. As pointed out earlier no material worth believable was produced show that first opp.party has any right to do so.<br /> <br /> DW.1 in cross-examination has admitted that the account operated by the complainant in his bank is personal account which can be operated by the complainant himself alone. If that we the decision one as such loss understand as to how opp.party 1 has transferred the amount of Rs.40988/- as argued by the learned of counsel for the complainant . One an amount is credited in the account of account holder the bank has no jurisdiction to withdraw that amount that credited the account of sum including the person who is deposited them. At a consideration of the evidence in this case we are to the considered view that there is deficiency in service on the part of the 1st opp.party. Point found accordingly.<br /> <br /> In the result we allow the complaint. The first opp.party is directed to pay Rs. 14988/- 1ith interest at 8% per anum from 07-04-2004 till payment as compensation and Rs.3,000/- as cost. The order is to be complied with within one month from the date of this order.<br /> <br /> <br /> Dated this the 25th day of March, 2008.<br /> <br /> <br /> I N D E X<br /> <br /> List of witnesses for the complainant<br /> PW.1. – Dr. R. Rakesh.R.<br /> <br /> List of documents for the complainant<br /> P1. – Statement dt. 28.4.2004<br /> P2. – Salary certificate of February2004<br /> P3. – Salary certificate of March 2004<br /> P4. – Slip<br /> P5. – Letter sent by complainant to the 2nd opp.party.<br /> <br /> List of witnesses for the opp.party<br /> DW.1. – Mathew Koikkal<br /> DW.2. –Joji<br /> <br /> List of documents for the opp.parties<br /> D1. – Letter sent by 2nd opp.party to the Manager, South Indian Bank, <br /> Thiruvalla, dt.6.4.2004.<br /> D2. – Proceedings of the Secretary, Pushpagiri Medical Society.<br /> D3. – Joining report<br /> D4. - Application for leave on loss of pay<br /> D5. - Resignation letter<br /> D6. - Letter sent by 2nd opp.party dt. 6.4.2004.<br />