BEFORE THE MANDYA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANDYA PRESENT: 1. SIDDEGOWDA, B.Sc., LLB., President, 2. M.N.MANOHARA, B.A., LLB., Member, ORDER Complaint No.MDF/C.C.No.85/2009 Order dated this the 26th day of October 2009 COMPLAINANT/S Sri.Nanjundaiah S/o Kalaiah, R/o 3rd Cross, Neharu Nagara, Mandya. (By Sri.K.M.Basavaraju (Kundur)., Advocate) -Vs- OPPOSITE PARTY/S The Manager, Mandya City Co-operative Bank Ltd., V.V.Road, Mandya City. (By Sri.T.Lokesh., Advocate) Date of complaint 17.07.2009 Date of service of notice to Opposite party 07.08.2009 Date of order 26.10.2009 Total Period 2 Months 19 Days Result The complaint is allowed, directing the Opposite party to pay Rs.24,302/- with interest at 9% p.a. from 10.01.2007 with cost of Rs.1,000/- to the Complainant. Sri.Siddegowda, President 1. This complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Opposite party Bank claiming Rs.24,302/- with interest and also compensation of Rs.10,000/-. 2. The case of the Complainant is that the Complainant is a account holder in the Opposite party Bank since about 20 years in S.B.Account No.567. The Complainant has deposited cheque for Rs.52,243/- on 12.08.2005 to his account and the Opposite party Bank has given counter foil of challan to the Complainant. Thereafter, the Complainant used to transact in his account and the officials used to enter the pass book. As per the account pass book, the balance available is Rs.24,302/-. But, when he went to the Opposite party Bank to withdraw the amount, he came to know that the balance available in his account is Rs.1,159/-. The Complainant was shocked and showed the pass book. But, the Opposite party officials did not agree and refused to pay the amount as per the pass book. The Complainant gave representation on 10.07.2009 and to pay the amount, but the Opposite parties have given reply stating that one of the bank official who has been suspended entered the pass book. The Opposite party has committed deficiency in service in not paying the amount shown in the pass book. Therefore, the present complaint is filed. 3. The Opposite party has filed version, admitting that the Complainant is a account holder and was operating in the Bank. It is denied that on 12.08.2005, the Complainant has deposited a sum of Rs.52,243/- for which the Opposite party Bank has issued counterfoil to the Complainant. The said counterfoil is a concocted document to have wrongful gain. The counterfoil does not bear the challan number and also no bank officials have signed this counterfoil. Moreover, the pass book does not also bear this entry. Denying other allegations, it has contended that the Opposite party Bank has not committed any deficiency in service. The Opposite party Bank based on the nature of the complaint made by the customers has submitted a report. However, domestic enquiry is pending before enquiry officer. Unless and until a detailed report of the enquiry officer is received, the report of the Opposite party Bank is not a conclusive proof. The Opposite party Bank has initiated criminal proceedings against the suspended employees by lodging a complaint in Crime No.62/08. In case of serious loss, Complainant can approach the civil court. The claim is barred by limitation. The Opposite party has sought for dismissal of the complaint. 4. During trial, the Complainant is examined and has produced documents Ex.C.1 to C.4. The Opposite party is examined and no document is produced. 5. We have heard both the sides. 6. Now the points that arise for our considerations are:- 1. Whether the Complainant proves that he has deposited cheque for Rs.52,243/- under challan to the Opposite party Bank? 2. Whether the Complainant proves that the balance amount in his pass book is Rs.24,302/- as on 10.01.2007? 3. Whether the complaint is barred by limitation? 4. Whether the Opposite party has committed deficiency in service in not making payment? 5. Whether the Complainant is entitled to the relief sought for? 7. Our findings and reasons are as here under:- 8. The undisputed facts are that the Complainant is having S.B.Account No.567 in Opposite party Bank since about 20 years and hence, the Complainant is a Consumer. It is admitted that Ex.C.1 the bank pass book is issued by the Opposite party Bank to the Complainant. According to the Complainant, he had deposited cheque for Rs.52,243/- on 12.08.2005 and entry was made in his pass book and he was making transaction and though the balance amount was Rs.24,302/- when the Complainant went to draw the amount, the Opposite party Bank official informed that the balance available is only Rs.1,159/-. The Complainant has challenged the same, the Complainant has relied upon the entries made in the pass book Ex.C.1. According to the Opposite party, the entries are made in the pass book by one Jayaram, the Employee of the Opposite party Bank and he is suspended. According to the Opposite party, the ledger clerk Boraiah used to make entry to the pass book. The Complainant has produced the counter challan Ex.C.2 and it is dated 12.08.2005. According to the Complainant, the challan was filled by Jayaram, the attender of the bank and according to him, recently came to know that Jayaram is suspended. The challan is of the year 2005 and the attender Jayaram is suspended in the year 2008 and departmental enquiry is filed against him and complaint in Crime No.62/08 is filed. It cannot be accepted that attender would make entries to the pass book. Only ledger clerk can make entries to the pass book on the basis of the transaction. The challan Ex.C.1 contains the seal of the bank and also signature of the staff who received the challan. Since, the cash was not deposited seal of the cash received is not put, only a round seal has been put with regard to the cheque. Even though, the challan number is not entered, but it is the duty of the official who received the challan to make entry of the challan number and an account holder cannot be blamed. It cannot be said the seal of the bank would be with a attender. Naturally the seals of the bank would be in custody of authorized official with regard to the cash transaction or cheque transaction. In fact, we find the entry of the amount mentioned in the challan Ex.C.2 in the pass book at the entries made on 06.10.2005. Though, it is contended that the date of challan differs to the date of entry in the pass book, but when a cheque is presented it takes time for realization of the cheque amount through other bank and only after realization of the cheque amount, the bank authority would make entry in the ledger and pass book. Therefore, in the presence of Ex.C.1 pass book and also challan Ex.C.2, it is amply proved by the Complainant that the Complainant had deposited Rs.52,243/- by means cheque as per the challan Ex.C.2 and has drawn the amount so many times. In fact, the Opposite party has not produced the account extract at all to verify the entries made in the pass book. 9. It is pertinent to note that according to the Opposite party himself, the Opposite party bank has prepared a report with regard to the misappropriation of the amount by the bank officials and departmental enquiry is pending and even criminal complaint is filed against them in Crime No.62/08. Therefore, it is proved that all is not well in the Opposite party Bank and the Opposite party Bank officials have misused the amount of the customers in their account in so many ways and misappropriation of the amount as per the preliminary report of the Opposite party Bank itself is revealed and on that basis departmental enquiry is pending and even criminal complaint is lodged for misappropriation and tampering of the documents. For misdealing of the Opposite party Bank officials, the Complainant cannot be penalized not to draw amount from his account. There is no reason to suspect the pass book entries as per Ex.C.1 and it is proved that as per the pass book there was balance of Rs.24,302/- in the account of the Complainant and when he went to draw the amount on 10.07.2008 when he was informed that the balance is only Rs.1,159/- and not Rs.24,302/-. Therefore, he gave a petition as per Ex.C.3 and the Opposite party Bank has issued the reply Ex.C.4, but the reply cannot be accepted at all. Therefore, the Complainant was prevented by the Opposite party Bank officials in drawing the amount from his account and it has caused mental tension to the Complainant and hence, the Opposite party has committed deficiency in service. 10. It is contended that the complaint is barred by limitation. Though as per the pass book Ex.C.1 the amount of the cheque was credited to the S.B. Account of the Complainant on 06.10.2005 and the complaint is filed on 17.07.2009 and on that basis, it is contended that the claim is barred by limitation, but the Complainant has withdrawn the amount in his account several times, even from the amount of the cheque credited to his account and on 10.01.2007 the balance was Rs.24,302/-. According to the Complainant, on 10.07.2008 when he went to draw the amount he was informed that the balance is only Rs.1,159/- and not Rs.24,302/- and refused to pay the amount, therefore he gave a petition as per Ex.C.3. Therefore, the Complainant is not claiming the entire cheque amount and it is not the case, cheque amount is not entered in the pass book and he has not drawn the amount. Therefore, the cause of action for the claim started on 10.07.2008 when the Complainant went to draw the amount and the Opposite party Bank informed that the balance is only Rs.1,159/- and not Rs.24,302/-. Therefore, the complaint is not barred by limitation and hence, we answer the point accordingly. 11. The Complainant has sought for claim of Rs.24,302/- with interest and compensation. Ex.C.1 clearly proves that the balance is Rs.24,302/-. Therefore, the Complainant is entitled to though amount with interest from 10.01.2007. Since, the Complainant is awarded with interest, it is not proper to award compensation. 12. In the result, we proceed to pass the following order; ORDER The complaint is allowed, directing the Opposite party to pay Rs.24,302/- with interest at 9% p.a. from 10.01.2007 with cost of Rs.1,000/- to the Complainant. (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum this the 26th day of October 2009). (PRESIDENT) (MEMBER)
