Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

72/2013

M/s.M.V.Rukumani, - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s.Axis Bank Ltd, rep. by its Manager, - Opp.Party(s)

P.Parthasarathy

25 Oct 2017

ORDER

 

                                                            Complaint presented on:  20.03.2013

                                                                Order pronounced on:  25.10.2017

 

 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

       2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

        PRESENT: THIRU.K.JAYABALAN, B.Sc., B.L.,            PRESIDENT

                    THIRU. M.UYIRROLI KANNAN B.B.A., B.L.,      MEMBER - I

WEDNESDAY THE 25^th DAY OF OCTOBER 2017

   C.C.NO.72/2013  

 

M/s. M.V.Rukmani,

W/o.K.Venugopal,

Trustee,

M/s. Kankipatti Kannaiah Chetty Trust,

1362, 18^th East Cross Street,

M.K.B.Nagar,

Vyasarpadi,

Chennai – 600 039.

 

Cause Title,

Amended vide order passed inC.M.P.No. 118 of 2015 in C.C.

No.72/2013, dt 04.05.2015.

 

M/s. Kanchipatti Kannaiah,

Chetty Trust, Respondent,

By Trustee Mrs. M.V.Rukmani

 

The Word “Trustee”,

Substituted by P.Parthasaradhy,

Vide ordered dated 26.10.2016,

In C.M.P. No.104 of 2016,

In C.C.No.72/2013,

 

 

                                                                                    ….. Complainant

 

 

..Vs..

1.M/s. Axis Bank Ltd.,

Rep. by its Manager,

No.82, 4^th Floor,

Radhakrishnan Salai,

Mylapore,

Chennai – 600 004.

 

2.M/s. Axis Bank Ltd.,

Regional Head Office,

Chota Bai Centre,

No.140, Nungambakkam High Road,

Chennai – 600 034.

 

.....Opposite Parties

Date of complaint                                     : 01.04.2013

Counsel for Complainant                         : Party in Person

Counsel for  1^st Opposite Party                   : Ex- Parte

 

Counsel for 2^nd opposite party                          : M.Sundar, V.Ezhilarasi 

 

O R D E R

 

BY PRESIDENT THIRU. K.JAYABALAN B.Sc., B.L.,

          This complaint is filed by the complainant  to explain how the Cheque No.100 was passed and also compensation for deficiency in service, mental agony with cost of the complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The 1^st opposite party has permitted M/s. Kankpatti Kanniah Chetty Charities (Trust) to open joint savings bank account in the name of the Trust namely M/s. Sree Kankipatti Kanniah Chetty Charities in the 1^st opposite party’s Branch and all the Trustees have given their consent for opening the savings account.  Four Trustees namely G.Nagaraj, Mr.G.Audisheshudu, M.V.Rukmani, and P.Lakshmi Narayanan have been authorized by the charities/Trust to sign the cheques. After opening of the Savings Bank account in the 1^st opposite party, upon a letter received from one of the Trustee namely P.Parthasarathy, that  the 2^nd opposite party has sought for three letters from the charities/Trust.

          2. The complainant along with 7 other trustees except P.Parthasarathy signed and furnished the letter to the 1^st opposite party; in their letter dated 03.09.2011 for the mode of operation of the account number 911010015434029 will be jointly by Mr.G.Nagaraj along with three of the following trustees Mr.G.Audisheshudu, Mrs.M.V.Rukmani and Mr.P.Lakshminarayanan. The complainant in his letter dated 28.11.2011 to the 2^nd opposite party seeking how cheque No.100 dated 24.09.2011 was passed and Demand Draft issued in favour of Mr.E.Premkumar for Rs.78,000/- when Mrs. M.V.Rukmani, one of the Trustees who is also should have signed along with three others has not signed the cheque and in that place Mr.G.Nagaraj signs in two places. The complainant was informed that the cheque was jointly signed by Mr.G.Nagaraj and Mr. Mr.Audisheshudu and as per the instruction given by the Trust; the mode of operation of the above mentioned account is jointly by Mr.G.Nagaraj and anyone among Mr.Audisheshudu Mrs.M.V.Rukmani and Mr.P.Lakshminarayanan. The reply letter dated 01.12.2011 is contrary to the stand taken by the Trust in its deed. The complainant wrote a detailed letter dated 20.12.2011that the observations of the 2^nd opposite party in his letter dated 01.12.2011 is totally not correct and untenable as per law as well as per the accepted norms. There is no reply to her letter. The complainant finally sent a letter on 02.07.2012 seeking information under Right to Information Act (R.T.I.Act) by affixing Rs.10/- court fee stamp and the reply dated 04.07.2012 by the 2^nd opposite party is clear how they have evaded to give a reply to the Trustee/complainant. The 1^st & 2^nd opposite parties are thus adopting unfair trade practices and that because of their negligence, recalcitrant and reckless attitude and deficiency in service they have caused mental agony and stress to the complainant herein. Hence the complainant filed the complaint to direct the opposite parties to furnish the details of the letter dated 02.07.2012 and right to Information Act and also to explain how the Cheque No.100 was passed and also compensation for deficiency in service, mental agony with cost of the complaint.

3. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE   2^nd OPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF:

          The case is bad for non-jointer of necessary parties. The complainant has neither arrayed M/s. Sree Kankpatti Kanniah Chetty Charities (Trust) as party, nor, arrayed all the trustees as necessary parties in the present complaint. Hence this complaint has to be dismissed in limini for non jointer of parties.  The Savings Account is a Trust Account, only the trust can initiate legal proceedings against Bank and not any individual in the capacity of the trustee, unless she/he happens to be a sole Trustee. The complainant herein is not a sole trustee and as such the present complaint is not maintainable under law.

4. It is true that M/s.Sree Kankpatti Kanniah Chetty Charties (Trust) has Savings Bank account with us. It is only a savings Bank account and not joint savings Bank account as per the complainant’s averment. There are lots of disputes amongst the Trustees and the complainant herself has admitted in her pleadings that a suit in O.S.No.7565/2011 is pending before the XII Asst. Judge of the City Civil Court, Chennai. The Trustees including the complainant has suppressed this fact to this opposite party and operating the Bank Account, which is against law and the Bank reserves its right to file appropriate legal proceedings for the same against all the trustees. The complainant has not preferred any case against the other trustees in respect of the very transaction based on which she has filed the present complaint. Hence  the complainant’s malafide intention to grab money and harass the opposite party is evident.

5. As per the finance of the Bank Mr.G.Nagarajaj along with any one of the signatory can operate the bank account, which has been ratified by their letter dated 03.09.2011. The bank is not aware of the internal dispute of the complainant trust. This opposite party respectfully states that the cheque No.100 was passed on 24.09.2011 and D.D was drawn in favour of Mr.E.Prekumar for Rs.78,000/-. However the Demand Draft was not encashed and the instrument is invalid due to lapse of time. The above said amount is held by the bank under the head “Payable”. Only if that demand draft is revalidated, by the Trust, it can be used otherwise it has no validity at all. Hence the complainant along with all the Trustees can at any time after revalidating the Demand Draft, cancel the same and remit it, in the account of the Trust. There is no loss for the Trust and as a trustee the complainant has no personal grievance or right to sue the bank in the individual capacity and present complaint is not maintainable in law.  There is no privity of contract between the complainant (individual capacity) and the bank. Hence the complaint has to be dismissed in limini as fictitious claim.

 6. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

          1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

          2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what extent?

 

 

7. POINT NO :1 

          The complainant Rukmani is a trustee of M/s. Sree Kankipatti Kanniah  trust during the pendency of the complainant. The complainant Rukmani was died and hence another trustee P.Parthsarathy substituted himself as the complainant. The trust deed is marked as Ex.A3 and the trust opened an Ex.A4 account with the 1^st opposite party and the 2^nd opposite party is the Regional Office of the 1^st opposite party. The trust is having 8 trustees. All the trust members excepting the complainant Parthararathy gave Ex.A6 letter to the 2^nd opposite party authorizing  the trustees G.Nagaraju C.Aelhiseshudu, M/s M.Rukmani and P.Lakshmi Narayanan to operate the account. The trustees also gave Ex.A7 to the 1^st opposite party bank.

          The complainant alleged deficiencies against the opposite parties are that

1. Ex.A10 letter dated 28.11.2011 sent to the 2^nd opposite party questioning how cheque No.100 dated 24.09.2011 was passed issuing Demand Draft in favour of Primkumar  for Rs.78,000/- when M/s Rukmani who is not signed the cheque along with three other trustees.
2. The opposite parties failed to furnish detailed letter dated 02.07.2012 under Right to Information Act.

       8.  The complainant sent Ex.A20 letter dated 02.07.2012 under RTI Act to the 2^nd opposite party seeking certain particulars and for the same he had replied Ex.A21 to M.V.Rukmani. The details sought under the RTI Act  letter dated 02.07.2012 was furnished by the opposite parties are not sufficient. When the information furnished is not sufficient the complainant should have gone for appeal under the RTI Act.   There is a provision to file appeal under the RTI itself. When appeal remedy is available under the RTI Act, the complainant cannot seek directions in this forum to direct the opposite parties to furnish details sought in the letter dated 02.07.2012 and the same is not applicable under the Consumer Protection Act. Therefore as far as the second prayer is concerned seeking information under the RTI Act cannot be given to the complainant as a Consumer and hence in this reply the opposite parties have not committed any deficiency in service.

        9. As far as passing of the cheque is concerned the same has been sanctioned by two trustees who have been authorized to sanction the cheque. The complainant himself stated in para 7 of the complaint that the mode of the operation is jointly by G.Nagaraj and any one of the other trustees and said cheque was jointly signed by the trustees Mr.Nagarajan and Mr. Mr.Audisheshudu. Therefore in accordance with trust deed two trustees signed the cheque and the same was passed by the bank. The opposite party also pleaded in their written version that the cheque No.100 was passed on 24.09.2011 and Demand Draft was issued in favour of M.E.Premkumar for Rs.78,000/- and however the said DD was not encashed by him and hence there is no loss to the trust and hence the opposite parties have not committed any deficiency.

        10. No proof filed by the complainant to show that the DD was encashed by Mr.E.Premkumar. Therefore the DD money was only with the trustees account and no loss caused to the trust. Since the cheque was properly signed and DD was issued and even then the DD was not encashed therefore no loss was caused to the complainant. Hence these opposite parties have not committed any deficiency with regard to signing of the cheque. Therefore as discussed above we conclude and held that the opposite parties 1 & 2 have not committed any deficiency in service.

        11. The opposite party contended that the complaint is for non joinder of trust and the complainant M.V.Rukmani and then P.Parthasarathy have signed in a individual capacity as sole trust and therefore the complaint is liable to be dismissed. M.E.Rukmani has filed this complaint as one of the trustee of the trust. Neither the trust has not been added as a party nor the complaint filed in the representative of the trust. No authorization has been filed either to M.V.Rukmani and R.Parthsarathy authorizing them by the other trustees to maintain this complaint. Therefore we conclude that this complaint has been filed only in the individual capacity and therefore as contended by the opposite party the complaint cannot be maintained by individual.

12. POINT NO:2

Since the Opposite Parties have not committed any Deficiency in Service, the Complainant is not entitled for any relief and the Complaint is liable to be dismissed.

          In the result the Complaint is dismissed. No costs.

          Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 25^th day of October 2017.

 

MEMBER – I                                                                PRESIDENT

 

 

 

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANTS:

Ex.A1 dated NIL                     Memo of compromise filed by the parties

                                                 

 

Ex.A2 dated 04.06.2009                   Orders passed in O.S.No.2161 of 2008 VI

                                                      Asst.Judge

 

 

Ex.A3 dated 07.02.2011                   Deed of Trust entered into by Trustees document

                                                     No.227/2011

 

Ex.A4 dated 23.02.2011                   Opening of Bank Account Forms

 

Ex.A5 dated 02.09.2011                   Axis Bank letter to Trustees

 

Ex.A6 dated 03.09.2011                   Resolution of Trust regarding mode of operation of

                                                     Bank account 

 

Ex.A7 dated 03.09.2011                   Ratification by Trust

 

Ex.A8 dated 23.09.2011                   Xerox copy of cheque No.100

 

Ex.A9  dated 24.09.2011                  Statement of Axis Bank

                                                    (01.08.2011 to 11.10.2011)

 

Ex.A10 dated 28.11.2011                 Letter from complainant to Bank

 

Ex.A11 dated 01.12.2011                 Letter from Bank to complainant

 

Ex.A12 dated 20.12.2011                 Letter from complainant to bank

 

Ex.A13 dated NIL                             Acknowledgement of letter of 20.12.2011 by

                                                    postal authorities.

 

Ex.A14 dated 20.01.2012                 Letter from complainant to bank

 

Ex.A15 dated 02.03.2012                 Letter from complainant to 1^st opposite party

 

Ex.A16 dated 20.03.2012                 Letter from bank to complainant

 

Ex.A17 dated 11.04.2012                 Legal notice to Bank

 

Ex.A18 dated 20.04.2012                 Letter from Bank to Advocate

 

Ex.A19 dated 11.06.2012                 Letter from complainant to bank

 

Ex.A20 dated 02.07.2012                 Letter from claimant to Bank under RTI Act

 

Ex.A21 dated 04.07.2012                 Letter from Bank to complainant

 

Ex.A22 dated 04.02.2013                 Legal Notice to Bank

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE 2^nd OPPOSITE PARTY :

 

                                      ………..NIL ……..

 

 

 

                                     

MEMBER – I                                                                PRESIDENT