BEFORE THE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD.
F.A. 1534/2008 against C.C. 21/2008, Dist. Forum, Tirupathi
Between:
The Branch Manager
Union Bank of India
AIR Bypass Road
Tirupathi. *** Appellant/
O.P.
And
Smt. K. Nagasubbamma
W/o. K. Raja Reddy
Age: 50 years, Plot No. 302
Konda Residency
D.No. 361, Giripuram Main Road
Tirupathi, Chittoor Dist. *** Respondent/
Complainant
Counsel for the Appellant: M/s. Ghanta Rama Rao .
Counsel for the Respondent: M/s. M. Ramgopal Reddy
CORAM:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT.
&
SMT.M.SHREESHA, LADY MEMBER.
MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND TEN
ORAL ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice D. Appa Rao, President.)
***
1) This is an appeal preferred by the opposite party bank against the order of the Dist. Forum directing it to pay Rs. 1 lakh together with interest and costs.
2) The case of the complainant in brief is that she deposited Rs. 1 lakh under two Fixed Deposit Receipts (FDRs) Rs. 50,000/- each on 8.9.2006 which carry interest @ 6% p.a., with maturity date of six months. When she approached the bank for encashment on 26. 4. 2007 and subsequent dates they did not respond and on that she issued legal notice 7.9.2007 for which a reply was given with false and frivolous allegations. Alleging that non-refunding of the amount would amounts to deficiency in service filed the complaint claiming Rs. 1 lakh with interest @ 12% p.a., besides compensation of Rs. 1 lakh towards mental agony and costs.
3) The appellant bank resisted the case. While admitting issuance of FDRs for Rs. 1 lakh it alleged that the complainant had an S.B. account and deposited Rs. 1 lakh on 8.6.2006 in her S.B. account and submitted an application dt. 8.6.2006 for issuance of two FDRs for Rs. 50,000/- each for a period of six months. She had specifically instructed to transfer the funds from her S.B. account as required for issuance of FDRs with a plea that she had to attend an urgent work, and requested to issue FDRs immediately. Since the bank officials were busy though the FDRs were given transfer of funds from her S.B. account could not be made. It was an inadvertent mistake. They could not detect as they do not have such software in their computer system. In order to have wrongful gain she had subsequently withdrawn Rs. 2 lakhs on 12.7.2006 from her S. B. account taking advantage of inadvertent mistake committed by them. After receipt of notice from the complainant they got issued reply mentioning these facts. She did not deposit Rs. 2 lakhs as alleged and therefore the complaint was false and fictitious and therefore prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
4) The complainant in proof of her case filed her affidavit evidence and got Exs. A1 to A6 marked while the bank filed Ex. B1 to B6.
5) The Dist. Forum after considering the evidence placed on record opined that on 8.6.2006 the complainant had deposited only Rs. 1 lakh vide Ex. B2 pay-in-slip does not bear the signature of the complainant, therefore it could not be said that she had deposited Rs. 1 lakh only and that there was mistake in not transferring the amount from her S.B. account while issuing the FDRs. Therefore the bank was directed to pay Rs. 1 lakh with interest @ 6% p.a., from 8.12.2006 till 4.2.2008 and with future interest @ 9% p.a. from 5.2.2008 till the date of realization together with costs of Rs. 1,000/-.
6) Aggrieved by the said decision the bank preferred the appeal contending that the Dist. Forum did not appreciate either facts or law in correct perspective. Exs. B1 to B6 filed by the bank would clearly show that the complainant had remitted Rs. 1 lakh in her S.B. account and that it was withdrawn on different dates. However the same was not transferred from her S.B. account when the FDRs were issued and as such it was not liable to pay any amount. The amount could not be transferred from her S.B. account due to fault in computer system. Therefore it prayed that the complaint be dismissed.
7) The point that arises for consideration is whether the order of the Dist. Forum is vitiated by mis-appreciation of fact or law?
8) It is an undisputed fact that the appellant bank had issued Exs. A1 & A2 FDRs for Rs. 50,000/- each on 8.6.2006 repayable at the end of six months with interest @ 6% p.a. It is also not in dispute that on the very same day she had deposited Rs. 1 lakh in her S.B. account. The bank alleges on her instructions they had transferred Rs. 1 lakh from her S.B. account under Ex. B1 additional deposit form. In view of urgency expressed by her the bank opened two FDRs with zero balance with a view to transfer the funds from her S.B. account to FDR account, however, due to pressure of work they could not transfer the funds from S.B. account to FDR account.
9) It may be stated herein that Ex. B2 pay-in-slip which the bank intend to rely to prove that on 8.6.2006 the complainant had paid Rs. 1 lakh does not bear the signature of the complainant. Ex. B1 is the additional deposit form which bears her signature. Therefore it cannot be said that she deposited Rs. 1 lakh only on 8.6.2006. Though the FDRs matured by 8.12.2006 despite notice was issued by the complainant on 7.9.2007 under Ex. A3 9 months after expiry of the maturity date, the bank did not find out the mistake. If really there was a fault in the computing system the bank ought to have filed the affidavit of the concerned officer manning it to explain as to the circumstances under which such entry could not be made. After all on every day the bank tallies the accounts. They would submit periodical statements not only to their Head Office but also to RBI. If really they had paid Rs. 2 lakhs mistakenly they could have known at least after issuance of notice under Ex. A3 nine months after maturity. Their Exs. A3 & A4 account ledger printout do not indicate that the complainant had withdrawn the amount surreptiously in order to gain wrongfully. She has been a customer of the bank obviously for the last several years. It is not sufficient if simply they throw the blame on the computing system unless it has been substantiated by way of documentary evidence as to how such an entry could not be made. We are constrained to make a mention herein that instances of withdrawing the amounts or making false entries by taking advantage of computer system by the employees are on increase. For the mistake committed by the bank, the complainant cannot be penalized. The appellant bank having found the mistake could have filed the affidavit of the officer/clerk who was manning the computer system on the said date in order to show the circumstances under which such a mistake was crept in.
10) We may mention that the bank did not file written version as contemplated under the Consumer Protection Act. It has filed objections to the complaint with the signature of the Branch Manager. The objections are bereft of details as to the employee who had committed the mistake. They could not file any document to show that computing system does not have facility of automatic transfer of amount from S.B. account to FDR account. There was inordinate delay in finding out the so called mistake imputed by the bank which itself shows that they intend to cover up their deficiencies. The complainant cannot be found fault for the latches of the bank. The bank is irresponsible in alleging that the complainant has surreptiously withdrawn the amount as though the bank employees are not blameworthy. The very same credibility could be given to the complainant when she alleges that there was foul play evident from their own entries in the account filed by them. We reiterate that the bank did not choose to file the affidavit of the concerned in order to demonstrate that there was fault in the accounting system. We do not see any mis- appreciation of fact or law by the Dist. Forum in this regard. We do not see any merits in the appeal.
11) In the result the appeal is dismissed with costs computed at Rs.5,000/-. Time for compliance four weeks.
1) _______________________________
PRESIDENT
2) ________________________________
MEMBER
Dt. 25. 10. 2010.
*pnr
“UP LOAD – O.K.”
