FA.No.752/2007 AGAINST C.C.No.911/2006  DISTRICT FORUM-II, HYDERABAD

Between:

Mr.M.Ashok Kumar

S/o.late M.Rajaiah

Aged 59 years, Occ:Retd.DGM

 From HMWS&SB, R/o.H.No.Flat No.601,

6^th Block, Janapriya Quarters,

Mohan Nagar, Kothapet,

Hyderabad-35.                                                                                                   Appellant/

                                                                                                                            Complainant

                   A N D

M/s. Syndicate Bank

Khairatabad Branch

Opp:Shadan College,

Khairatabad,

Hyderabad-4.

Rep. by its Chief Manager,

Mr.B.P.MOhanthy.                                                                                             Respondent/

                                                                                                                            Opposite party

Counsel for the Appellant: Mr.S.Siva Shankar.

Counsel for the Respondent:-Mr.M.Sreenivasulu.

QUORUM:      SMT.M.SHREESHA,  MEMBER

&

SRI K.SATYANAND, MEMBER

THURSDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF OCTOBER,

TWO THOUSAND NINE

Oral Order( Per Sri K.Satyanand,Hon’ble Member)
                                                                   ***

This is an appeal filed by the unsuccessful complainant challenging the order of the District Forum dismissing his complaint.

The facts that led to filing this appeal are briefly as follows:

The complainant had been a pensioner from August 2005.  He opened his pension account with the opposite party bank.  It seems the bank and the complainant had fell out as the amount of the complainant was misappropriated and the complainant made out a case against the bank officers responsible for the same.  Later the said amount was paid to him.  However, the complainant approached the pension paying officer namely the Asst. Pension Officer to change his account to Andhra Bank from the opposite party bank.  The pension payment officer indicated to the complainant that the existing bank had to give a ‘‘No objection certificate’.  The complainant claimed to have applied for ‘‘No objection certificate’ to the opposite party bank The complainant further pleaded that instead of giving a ‘No objection certificate’, the opposite party bank issued a certificate stating that his loan account was closed and there were no dues deliberately to mislead and avoided giving ‘No objection certificate’ only to harass the complainant as he nursed a grudge against the complainant for having pulled up the bank  on the earlier occasion in the matter of the diversion of his money.  The complainant, therefore, alleged that this act of the opposite party rendered his payment to be withheld for few months and thereby he sustained heavy loss without subsistence.  Characterizing these actions of the manager as marking the deficiency of service, he filed the complaint for various reliefs including damages to a tune of Rs.5,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% p.a.

The opposite party resisted the complaint briefly narrating the true facts according to it. It clearly stated that the complainant never approached them for a ‘‘No objection certificate’’ as contended by him and on the other hand the AAO himself addressed a letter on 7-8-2006 on behalf of the pensioner for such a ‘‘No objection certificate’’ and the same was issued on 28-8-2006 with a copy to the counsel for the complainant.  It is also maintained by the opposite party that they clarified in the said copy as to the action taken by them in the matter of his loan account as the complainant obviously mixed up both the issues. 

In support of his case, the complainant filed his own affidavit and relied upon documents marked as Exs.A1 to A8.  On the other hand, the opposite party did not rely upon any documents of its own but heavily relied upon the documents of the complainant himself.

On a consideration of the evidence adduced, the District Forum dismissed the complaint holding that there was no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.

Aggrieved by the said order, the complainant filed the present appeal on the usual ground that the District Forum failed to see its merits.

Heard.  The respondent/opposite party filed written arguments.

The point that arises for consideration is whether there are any good grounds to interfere with the order of the District Forum?

This is a clear case in which the complainant tried to mix up three issues that existed between himself and the opposite party.  It is an admitted fact that initially he was having personal account with the opposite party.  It is also an admitted fact that an amount of Rs.4.5 lakhs belonging to the complainant was knocked off presumably by somebody with the connivance of the staff members.  However, the complainant had taken steps under the criminal law which yielded results to him atleast in recovering the said amount from the bank and the bank promptly paid that amount to the complainant.  So the said issue was closed.  The next issue was he was having some kind of loan account.  The closing of the loan account was also effected.  The third issue related to the pension account and its transfer to Andhra bank and the issue of ‘‘No objection certificate’’ in that regard.  We are concerned only with the last issue.  As per Ex.A4, the copy of the letter by the Asst. Pension Payment officer to opposite party, it is crystal clear that the Pension Payment Officer himself addressed a letter to the manager on 7-8-2006 to issue a ‘‘No objection certificate’’ as required under the Government rules to change the pension payment bank as desired by the complainant.  The said letter evoked response from the opposite party which therefore issued the ‘‘No objection certificate’’ as disclosed by Ex.A1 itself.  The ‘No objection certificate’ is dated 28-8-2006.  This clearly shows that the opposite party had taken only 21 days to issue the ‘No objection certificate’ and it acted on the request of the Pension Payment officer.   There is absolutely no evidence to show that the complainant ever approached the opposite party any time before Ex.A4.  He tried to project that the certificate in Ex.A5 dated 29-7-2006 as something that was issued by the opposite party so issued to confuse the issue.  This theory has no foundation as it relates to a different loan account as the pension account is well set out in Ex.A4.  As a matter of fact, he made a request to the Pension Payment Officer as per Ex.A6 dated 14-7-2006 to change his bank with effect from 1-7-2006.  Thus the allegation that the non issue of ‘No objection certificate’ by the bank had caused withholding of his pension for more than 3 or 4 months is totally false.  Thus it is crystal clear from the record that his own documents give a lie to the grievance that he tried to make out.

Thus there are absolutely no merits in the appeal and accordingly the appeal is dismissed but without costs as the complainant is a pensioner and an aged person.

                                                     Sd/

                                                                                                                                                MEMBER.

                                                                                                                                                  Sd/-

                                                                                                                                                MEMBER

JM                                                                                                                     Dt.29-10-2009