Filed On:21.12.2012
Disposed On:24.07.2015
THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, THIRUVALLUR
PRESENT: THIRU. S. PANDIAN, B.SC., L.L.M : PRESIDENT
TMT. S. SUJATHA, B.Sc., : MEMBER-I
Friday, the Day of 24th July-2015
CC. No. 33 / 2012
M/s. Sri. Arunachalar Realities
Represented by Mr. M. Sreekumar, partner
No. 12/68, Mukundan Street
Krishnapuram, Ambattur
Chennai-600 053. …Complainant
-Vs-
The Branch Manager
Bank of Baroda
Ambattur Branch
Chennai – 600 053. …Opposite Party
Counsel For Complainant : Mr. J. Karthikeyan, Advocate
Counsel For Opposite Party : Mrs. S.R. Sumathi, Advocate
This Complaint is coming upon before us finally on 20.07.2015 in the presence Mr. J. Karthikeyan, Advocate on the side of the complainant and Mrs. S.R. Sumathi, Advocate appeared on the side of the Opposite Party, and upon hearing arguments on the side of both and perused the documents and evidence, this Forum delivered the following,
ORDER
PRONOUNCED BY THIRU. S. PANDIAN, PRESIDENT
This complaint is filed by the complainant U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to direct the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation for loss of income, loss of reputation and mental agony due to deficiency in service with cost.
The brief facts of the complaint are as follows:
1. The complainant is doing a business named as M/s. Shri Arunachalar Realities.
2. The main objects is to promote the Housing sites i.e. real estate and it is a partnership firm consists of the complainant and one Sri. Mahadevi.
3. The complainant business transactions are only done through the opposite party via Account No. 05330200000640 which was opened during 24.01.2004 duly fulfilling the opposite parties queries. From the year 24.01.2004 to 15.02.2007 all the bank transactions were done by single operation, due to heavy work for the other partner namely Mahadevi was unable to operate the account since 16.02.2007 the mode of A/c operation account was converted on the strength of the letter dated 16.02.2007 give to Bank signed A/c by the both parties A/c any one of this was done after strict compliance from the complainant as per the bank guidelines everything other partners consent, “Mandate for single operation” after strict formalities the account was converted into a single operation from 16.02.2007 to till date all the transactions was done only by this complainant as a single operation.
4. That on 21.03. 2012 the complainant accessed the opposite parties bank for want of two “Demand Draft” for a sum of Rs.5 lakh each for the purpose of registration of a land in Avadi Morai Village when everything in the registrar office was ready i.e. sale deed and the parties (complainant’s client’s) as soon as the demand draft comes the Registration process will be completed. At this juncture, the officials of the opposite party, the Chief Manager and the Accountant refused to provide the Demand Draft putting a query of mode of operation of the above said account. The complainant without any delay has detailed explained the earlier transactions and also the CONVERSION OF ACCOUNT OPERATION letter dated 16.02.2007 about the single operation. Even then, they refused and at one point of time they were very adamant to do the transactions and they simply said that the system was not updated.
5. After examining the husband of the other partner name Mrs.Mahadevi and after a long delay, finally Demand Draft was given and the complainant was rushed its Sub-Registrar Office unfortunately his clients were gone when phoned they said they don’t want to register the document. Thereby the complainant was put to shock, mental pain and mental strees, suffered heavy loss and was put to shamed before the Registrar office this was only because of opposite parties act of negligence and deficiency in service.
6. That on 22.03.2012 the complainant has made a request in writing to the opposite party to cancel the DD Demand Drafts by clearly mentioning the reason for it due to inordinate delay on the part of the opposite party.
7. In order to escape from the mistake the opposite party has issued the notice dated 18.04.2012.
8. That the complainant his given the letter of mode of conversion of operation of account dated 16.02.2007 and used, utilized the very same account has a single operation for more than 5 years (which evident from document No.2) but all of a sudden the opposite party his refused to provide Demand Draft at an appropriate time which causes the complainant mental agony, mental pain and the complainant was put to hardship, financial loss, reputation and shamed before his clients that the complainant is not having sufficient funds, which all are occurred only by the act of gross negligence and the act of deficiency in service committed by the opposite parties. Hence this complaint.
The Contention of the Written Version brief facts of the Opposite Party are as follows:
9. This opposite party denies each and every averments and allegations set out in the complaint, excepting those that are expressly admitted herein.
10. While opening the alleged current account the Complainant had given mandate, whereby the said account was to be operated JOINTLY. During earlier half of February, one of the Partners requested this Opposite Party to convert the operational instructions to ANYONE. This Opposite Party insisted that the same could be done only if the request was made in writing by both the Partners. The Partner (Viz., Mr. M. Sreekumar) informed that he shall provide the Request Letter in due course, however, insisted that the request of Complainant in this respect may be entertained through Specimen Signature Card. Thus, in the said backdrop, this opposite Party changed the operational instructions to ANYONE on 06.02.2007. Despite promise the said Partner did not provide the Request Letter. When this Opposite Party frequently reminded the complainant’s partners, over phone as also when they visited the branch of opposites party, about the Request Letter, this opposite party got response that the operational instructions given while opening the said account might be revived. This Opposite Party acted upon the same. This Opposite Party did not receive any letter from the complainant as regards change of operational instructions, as alleged in SI. No: 4 of the complaint. Since this opposite party did not receive the ostensible letter dtd: 16.02.2007 there was no obligation on its part to change the operational instructions.
11. While so, at around 12 Noon on 21.03.2012 Mr. M. Sreekumar, one of the Partners of the complainant approached this Opposite party’s branch bank and demanded two demand drafts for a sum of Rs. Lakhs each from their A/C. when the staff members of the opposite party were processing the request for Demand Draft, it was found that the operational instructions were JOINT and the Applications for DD were issued SINGLY by Mr. M. Sreekumar, Partner of the complainant. On being asked, Mr. M. Sreekumar submitted that the opposite party could verify the request for Demand Draft by contacting the other partner. The official of this Opposite Party confirmed the position by talking to the other partner, viz., Mrs. R.Mahadevi. This was entertained by the opposite party bona fide, to facilitate its genuine customer. When the branch official of opposite party was processing the Demand Draft Applications, the said Mr.M. Sreekumar went out. After completion of formalities the Demand Drafts were made ready by this opposite party. Mr. M. Sreekumar, the partner of the complainant collected the said Demand Drafts at around 2.00 P.M. The Contrary averments and allegations made by the complainant are only a concocted story.
12. It is a fact that this Opposite party issued a letter dtd: 18.04.2012 requesting the Complainant to honour gentleman’s commitment to submit Request Letter for change of operational instructions. However, it is wrong to state that through the letter dtd: 18.04.2012 this Opposite Party confirmed having acknowledged the ostensible letter dtd: 16.02.2007. Mere perusal of the said letter dtd: 18.04.2012 of this Opposite Party shall show that it never received any Request Letter for change of operations instructions.
13. That Mr. M. Sreekumar Partner of the Complainant was in the nature of quarreling with the branch officials of Opposite Party for one reason or the other. In fact certain customers of this Opposite Party were witnesses to such occasions. He was also in the habit of making remarks that he knew how to teach lesson to the branch officials.
14. This opposite party did not receive any such letter dtd: 16.02.2007, as stated in SI. No: 9 of the complaint. It is equally wrong that this opposite party refused to provide Demand Draft to the Complainant. The complainant was issued with Demand Drafts against his Applications dtd: 21.03.2012, after completing due formalities. There were no instances of deficiency in service or negligence in service. Rather, this opposite party was trying to help out the complainant bona fide, by issuing Demand Draft based on Application signed by one partner.
15. This opposite party is not liable to compensate the complainant. The complaint is liable to be dismissed with exemplary cost of this opposite party.
16. On the side of the complainant the proof affidavit filed by the complainant as his evidence and Ex.A1 to A7 marked. While, so the opposite party also filed the proof affidavit and marked Ex.B1 to B5.
17. At this juncture, the point for determination before this Forum, is,
(1) whether there is any deficiency of service as alleged in the complaint as per the
part of the opposite party?
(2) Whether the complainant is entitled for any relief a prayed for.
18. Written Arguments submitted by both and the copy of the same is furnished to either side. In addition to that oral arguments adduced on both sides.
19. Point No. 1:- As per the case of the complainant, is that the complainant’s business transaction are only done through the opposite party vide A/C No. 05330200000640 which was opened on 24.1.2014 and from that date it was operated by joint operation till 15.02.2007 and from 16202 due to the heavy work of the other partner, the said account was converted into single operation on the strength of letter furnished to the bank on 16.02.2007 duly signed by both the parties. While s, on 21.03.2012 when the complainant went to the bank for want of Two D.D’s for Rs. 50,0000/-each for the purpose of registration of land in Avadi Morai village, the Accountant by putting a query of “mode of operation”, and it was stated that the said account has not been updated and therefore after checking the same, the DD issued which leads to delay and the registration work could not done and caused mental agony and loss of income due to the negligence and deficiency of service in the opposite party.
20. On the other hand, the opposite party denies each and every averments and allegation setout in the complaint and it is stated that the opposite party did not receive any such letter dated 16.2.2007 as narrated in the complaint and is equally wrong that the opposite party refuse to provide demand draft to the complainant and infact the complainant was issued with the demand drafts even on the day itself i.e. on 21.3.2012 after completing due for malities and there is no instances of deficiency in service or negligence in service, on the part of opposite party and the complainant is only on after through and abuse of process of court.
21. At this juncture, the duty cast upon this forum, to decide whether the complainant has proved the allegation in respect of the deficiency in service of the opposite party by means of relevant and the acceptable evidence which is the bounden duty of the complainant. First of all, on perusal of the complaint and the proof affidavit, it is learnt that the Ex.A1 is the document to show the partnerships Firm of the complainant. It is an admitted fact that the complainant’s Firm opened the Account vide No. 05330200000640 0n 26.1.2007 on submitting the opening application which is marked as Ex.B1. At the outset, whether it is true that the said account was converted into single operation from joint operation from 16.12.2007 on the strength of the letter furnished to the Bank on 16.02.2007 which is marked as Ex.A2. While so, it is stated by the opposite party that during earlier half of the Feb 2007, one of the partner requested the opposite party to convert the operational instructions to anyone and the opposite party insisted that the same could be done only if the request was made in writting by both the partners and in fact, despite promise the said partner viz. M. sree kumaran, did not provide the request letter and in turn the opposite party did not receive any such letter as marked as Ex.A2 and therefore there was no obligation on its part to change the operational instructions. At this point of time, it is pertinent to note that though the Ex.A2 has been marked as document to show that the complainant has provided the request letter to change the mode of operation but no document produced before this forum, for the actual receipt of the Ex.A2 by the opposite party while it is denied by the opposite party. Therefore, the sidd fact is not at all proved by the complainant since mere filing of the Ex.A2 is not sufficient to prove the said fact.
22. The next point to be taken into consideration is that whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. On careful perusal of the averments made both in the complainant and the written version, there is no dispute that the complainant who is one of the partners approached the opposite party bank and demanded two demand drafts for a sum of Rs. 5 Lakhs each from their Accounts, for which the application dated 21.3.2012 is marked Ex.B2. It is further learnt that, when the staff members of the opposite party were processing the request for demand draft, it was found that the operational instruction were joint bank and the application for DD were issued single by Mr. Sreekumar and being asked him, he stated that the opposite party could verify the other partner and in turn the officials of the opposite party confirmed the position by talking to the other partners in order to ascertain the bonafide and to facilitate the genuine customer and then issued the D.D after completion of formalities at 1.10 P.M. on the same day itself. From the above facts, it is crystal clear that the officials of the opposite party has followed the instructions of the bank authorities whenever arose any doubt and hence there is no harm in verifying the same from the persons concerned or the joint account holder, that too the genuine of the transaction. It is further learnt that from Ex.A3, the complainant submitted the application dated 22.03.2012 to cancel the Demand Drafts which clearly reveals the fact that the Demand Drafts were made ready and issued even on 21.03.2012 i.e. within the reasonable time .
23. In the light of the above facts and circumstances, it is crystal clear that there is no deficiency in service or negligence in duty on the part of the opposite party. Though, it is true that as per Ex.A7, the information under Right to Information Act 2005 some of the transaction viz. honouring of cheques since 16.02.2002 to 16.4.2012 have been done based on the operational instructions given by the Account holder, from time to time, there is no harm to verify the bonafide and the genuinely of the Demand Draft application in order to help only the complainant. Moreover, infact there is no refused on the part of the opposite party to provide the Demand Draft to the complainant and the officials of the opposite party actually have done their formalities before issue of Demand Draft for huge amount which is the duty bound to take reasonable precaution to prevent frauds and malpractices. Thus the point no. 1is answered accordingly.
24. Point No. 2:- Regarding this point, it has to be decided whether the complainant is entitled for any relief as prayed in the complaint. As per the decision arrived in point no. 1, it goes without saying there is no deficiency in service or negligent in duty on the part of the opposite party. It is no doubt that the Demand Drafts sought for by the complainant were issued on 21.03.2012 at around 1.10p.m i.e within the reasonable time. Hence, there is no refusal of providing D.D at an appropriate time as alleged by the complainant. Moreover, there is no ioto of evidence on the side of the complainant to prove the facts that the complainant could not complete the registration of document in the sub registration’s office on 21. 03. 2012 for the reason stated in the complaint. Further, as rightly pointed out by the opposite party that in the application for issuance of the Demand Draft, the purpose for, which the Demand Draft is required has not been mentioned and hence the complainant’s allegation that only due to the delay in issuance of Demand Draft caused loss of business to him, mental agony to him etc. are baseless and imaginary. It might be due to several other reason, if the business transaction is true. Therefore, in this regard, the complaint has not proved through reliable and consistent evidence. Hence, this complainant is not entitled for any relief as prayed for in the complaint. Whileso, the arguments made by the opposite party that this complaint has been filed on filing grossed and it is vexatious one and the opposite party is unnecessary brought into the Forum and caused hardship while the opposite party has discharged their duty holds good. Therefore the Opposite party is entitled for cost from the complainant. Thus the point no. 2 is answered accordingly.
In the Result, this complaint is dismissed with cost of Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand Only) to the opposite party.
Dictated by the president to the steno-typist, transcribed and computerized by her, correctly by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this 7th August 2015.
Sd/-*** Sd/-***
MEMBER-I PRESIDENT
List of Documents filed by the complainant
Ex.A1.Dt. 22.02.2007: Xerox copy of the Deed of Partnership.
Ex.A2Dt.16.02.2007: Xerox copy of the letter sent by the complainant to the opposite party.
Ex.A3Dt.22.03.2012: Xerox copy of the letter sent by the complainant to the opposite party.
Ex. A4Dt.18.04.2012: Xerox copy of the reply sent by the opposite party to the complainant.
Ex. A5Dt.11.05.2012: Xerox copy of the reply sent by the complainant to the opposite party.
Ex. A6.Dt.07.04.2012: Xerox copy of the letter sent by the complainant to the opposite party
under Right to Information Act 2005.
Ex. A7.Dt. 16.05.2012: Reply sent by the opposite party to the complainant
List of Documents filed by the opposite party
Ex.B1. Dt.24.01.2007 - Account opening application by the complainant to the opposite party.
Ex.B2.Dt.21.03.2012 - Application issued by the complainant to the opposite party.
Ex.B3.Dt.18.04.2012 - Letter sent by the complainant to the opposite party.
Ex.B4.Dt.16.04.2012 - Letter sent by the complainant to the opposite party under the Right to
Information Act.
Ex.B5.Dt.11.05.2012 - Reply sent by the complainant to the opposite party.
Sd/-*** Sd/-***
MEMBER-I PRESIDENT
