A. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : AT HYDERABAD
FA 2/2008 CC No. 24/2007 on the file of the
District Forum I, Krishna at Machilipatnam
Between :
- B. E. Co-operative Bank
Represented by its Branch Manager
Fort Road, Machilipatnam .. Appellant/opposite party
And
- Tulluri Rama Krishna Rao,
S/o Koteswara Rao
Hindu, Business,
R/o Javvarupet, Machilipatnam.
- Mrs. T. V. Satyavathi, W/o Late Ramakrishna Rao
Widow, Properties, H. No.28/277, Jawarpet,
Machilipatnam, Krishna District.
- T. P. R. Kishore Kumar, S/o Late Ramakrishna Rao
Aged about , Properties, H. No.28/277, Jawarpet,
Machilipatnam, Krishna District.
- T. Laxman Kumar, S/o Late Ramakrishna Rao
Aged about , Properties, H. No.28/277, Jawarpet,
Machilipatnam, Krishna District.
- T. Ravi Sankar, S/o Late Ramakrishna Rao
Aged about , Properties, C/o Steel City SECU, (TI),
Opp: Radhika Theatre, Machilipatnam, Krishna District.
( Respondents 2 to 6 are brought as Legal Representatives
In the place of deceased First Respondent as per orders
Dated 21.12.2009 in FAIA No. 566/2009 in FA No. 2/09 )
.. Respondents/complainants
Counsel for the Appellant : M/s. Nanduri Srinivas.
Counsel for the Respondent s : M/s. M. Aravindu.
Coram ; Sri Syed Abdullah … Hon’ble Member
And
Sri R. Lakshminarasimha Rao… Hon’ble Member
Tuesday, the Thirteenth Day of July, Two Thousand Ten
Oral Order : ( As per Sri Syed Abdullah, Hon’ble Member )
*******
The appellant is the opposite party in CC 24/2007 before the District Forum I, Krishna at Machilipatnam, where under, the opposite party was directed to credit an amount of Rs.5,000/- to the S. O. D. Account, bearing No. 251 of the complainant and also to pay compensation of Rs. 5000/- with costs of Rs.1000/-. The impugned order is assailed as erroneous both on questions of fact ad law.
The facts of the case are that the complainant had opened an S.O.D. Account bearing No. 150 with the opposite party bank and used to operate it. But it was closed on 26.09.2006. Subsequently, he opened a new account bearing no. 251 with the opposite party on 07.10.2006. The opposite party had sent a letter dated 16.03.2007 informing that a sum of Rs.5000/- was wrongly credited to his old Account bearing no. 150 and another customer of their bank, by name, A. Ramakrishna Rao bearing SOD Account No 159 had produced a counterfoil dated 08.12.2005 for Rs.5,000/- complaining that the said amount was not credited to his account and basing on the said counter foil issued by the opposite party had verified the accounts and on enquiry it was found that a sum of Rs.5000/- was wrongly credited in A/c No. 150 by then he had already closed his previous account no. 150 on 26.09.2006 itself. The complainant is not aware of the transaction of Rs.5000/- dated 08.12.2005 and his accounts are actually looked after by his clerks. The opposite party also never informed about the wrong crediting of a sum of Rs.5000/- and without giving an opportunity or verification of the accounts a sum of Rs.5000/- was debited from his new S.O.D. Account No. 251 which act or omission amounts to deficiency in service. Hence claimed for refund of Rs.5000/- with compensation of Rs.2000/- and costs.
The opposite party bank in its version has stated that the complainant had opened SOD Account bearing no. 251 on 07.10.2006. The opposite party sent a letter dated 16.03.2007 informing him about the debiting of Rs.5000/- from his new Account bearing no .251 towards wrong credit of Rs.5000/- to his old Account no. 150 and that another customer by name A. Ramakrishna Rao has produced the counter foil dated 08.12.2005 for Rs.5000/- about non-crediting of the amount into his Account No. 159. The allegation that a sum of Rs.5000/- was debited illegally without giving any intimation is denied. On verification of the records it is known that the complainant had not remitted Rs.5000/- into his Account and that on the other hand A. Ramakrishna Rao had remitted the amount for crediting in his SOD Account no. 159. The opposite party immediately informed the same to the complainant through its messenger and sent original voucher through messenger for verification and confirmation. The complainant knowing fully well about the credit of Rs.5000/- to his old Account had intentionally closed the said Account. Intimation was sent through registered letter dated 10.03.2007 which was acknowledged about the debiting of Rs.5000/- new SOD Account No. 251 for wrong crediting of Rs.5000/- in his earlier SOD Account no. 150.
During the enquiry, the complainant filed Photostat copy of the pass book of SOD Account bearing No. 251. Ex. A-2 is the original letter dated 10.03.2007 . Ex A-3 is the photo copy of Debit advice given by the opposite party. Ex. A-4 is the office copy of the registered legal notice dated 21.03.2007 got issued by the complainant to the opposite party along with the acknowledgements are filed. Where as Ex. B-1 to B5 are marked consisting of copy of current Account pay-in-slip relating to SOD Account bearing no. 150, original of secured overdraft Statement from 01.12.2005 to 30.12.2005 relating to Account bearing No. 150 pertaining to the complainant so also the statement pertaining to Account bearing No. 159 to another customer A. Ramakrishna Rao, the latter addressed by the opposite party to the complainant dated 10.03.2007 and over draft statement from 01.03.2007 to 31.03.2007 relating to account bearing no. 159 of another customer A. Ramakrishna Rao.
After going through the evidence on record, the District Forum simply gave a finding that there is a deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in debiting a sum of Rs.5000/- from SOD Account bearing No. 251 of the complainant. Further held that the opposite party ought to have confirmed from depositor A. Ramakrishna Rao in which Account Number he had deposited the amount. In the appeal grounds it is contended that the District Forum failed to note that the appellant had no knowledge of the mistake crept in wrongly crediting a sum of Rs.5000/- in the SOD Account of 150 but subsequently the said Account no. 150 was closed by the respondent/complainant. It is also the contention that the District Forum failed to take into consideration that the appellant bank would be able to detect the mistake after verification of their account on 05.03.2007 when the other customer A. Ramakrishna Rao who is having SOD A/c bearing no. 159, had produced counter foil dated 08.12.2005 about the non-crediting of the amount into his Account which mistake was detected only in the month of March, 2007. It is not the case of the complainant that he himself had deposited a sum of Rs.5000/- on 08.12.2005 and it is clear that it was actually deposited by another customer by name A. Ramakrishna Rao. It is also contended that appellant could rectify its mistake within a period of limitation and recover the money paid under mistake from the date of knowledge as per Article 113 of the Limitation Act. The learned counsel for the appellant contented that during the pendency of the appeal the respondent/complainant died and his L. Rs came on record who have filed their written version and arguments stating that the appeal may be allowed by allowing the appellant to withdraw the amount deposited at the time of applying for Stay. So urged that both on merits as well on admission, the appeal is to be allowed. It is also contended that as per Sec. 72 of the Indian Contract Act when the amount was wrongly adjusted by the Banker, the same can be recovered and the person who had taken advantage should return it as it amounts to unjust enrichment .
Point for consideration is, whether the impugned order suffers from factual and legal infirmity ?
The deceased respondent/complainant in his pleadings did not plead that he had debited a sum of Rs.5000/- on 08.12.2005 in his SOD Account bearing No. 150. Remittance was made on 08.12.2005. It is an admitted fact that he closed his Account on 26.09.2006 and again opened another fresh SOD Account no. 259 in the year 2006. Though the complainant filed Photostat copy of the savings bank pass book of SOD Account bearing No. 250 which was opened subsequently he had not filed original pass book of the same. Had it been filed could be noticed that on 08.12.2005 he did not remitted a sum of Rs.5000/- and without remittance a wrong credit was shown in his account. Evidently wrong credit was made in his old Account no. 150 though he had not remitted the said amount. It is clear from the evidence on record that another customer by name A. Ramakrishna Rao had deposited a sum of Rs.5000/- on 08.12.2005 but the said amount was not credited into his Account bearing no. 159 which he could verify it later and approached the opposite party bank and at that stage the opposite party had verified the records of both the accounts 150 and 159. The names of both is Rama Krishna Rao but the surname is different. . Ex. B-1 shows that a sum of Rs.5000/- was deposited by other customer A. Ramakrishna Rao in his SOD Account bearing No. 159 but not in respect of SOD Account no. 150. For comparing the monetary transactions, the opposite party bank had filed Ex B-2 Over Draft statement of the complainant pertaining to SOD Account no. 150 which shows that a sum of Rs.5000/- was wrongly credited even without any current Account pay-in-slip. Correspondingly as per Ex. B-3 Over Draft Statement of A. Ramakrishna Rao SOD Account no. 159 there was no entry showing credit of Rs.5000/- in his Account. Wrong entry and erroneous crediting of Rs.5000/- in the Account bearing no. 150 and 159 was informed to the complainant through messenger by sending Ex. B-4 along with the Over Draft Statement and then a registered letter was sent. The record is very crystal clear and by oversight or mistake wrong credit was done in the SOD Account of 150 of the complainant which account was later closed for the reasons best known. Sec. 72 of the Indian Contract Act lays down that where payment is made by wrong adjustment, the same can be recovered from the person who is not entitled for it. The complainant is bound to refund the amount under law. During pendency of the appeal, the complainant died and his L. Rs were brought on record who have rightly agreed to allow the appeal and to refund the amount deposited in the State Commission. The action of the appellant cannot be attributed as deficiency in service. Both on questions of fact and law the impugned order is not sustainable and is liable to be set aside.
In the result, the appeal is allowed setting aside the order dated 30.11.2007 of the District Forum I, Krishna at Machilipatnam and the appellant is entitled for the refund of the amount that was deposited lin the State Commission at the time of obtaining Stay. No order as to costs in the appeal.
Sd/-MEMBER
Sd/- MEMBER
DATED : 13.07.2010
