Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

FA/561/2011

The Branch manager,SBI - Complainant(s)

Versus

Padmakar Mirajkar - Opp.Party(s)

P.D.Audikesavalu

21 Jan 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI

BEFORE         HON’BLE THIRU JUSTICE R. REGUPATHI    PRESIDENT     

                        THIRU.A.K.ANNAMALAI                                JUDICIAL MEMBER 

                        TMT. P. BAKIYAVATHI                                    MEMBER

 

                                           F.A.NO. 561/2011

(Against order in  C.C. No. 15/2007

DCDRF, Villupuram, Dated 12.8.2010)

DATED THIS THE 21^st   DAY OF JANUARY 2015

The Branch Manager

State Bank of India  

Auroville International Township Branch,

Auroville – 605 101                                   ..Appellant/opp.party

                                      Vs

Padmakar Mirajkar,

S/o Krishna Rao,

Rep.by his power of Attorney Agent

S.Ayyappan S/o K.Subramanian

Edayanchavadi village

Auroville 605 101                                    ..Respondent/complainant

 

Counsel for the Appellant/opp.party            : M/s P.D.Adikesavalu

Counsel for Respondent/complainant           : Mr.K.Sukumaran

 

The opposite party is the Appellant. The District Forum allowed the complaint. Against the said order, the Appellant/opposite party filed this appeal praying to set aside the order of the District Forum in CC.No. 15/2007, dated 12.8.2010. 

          This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 6.1.2015 upon hearing the arguments on both side, perusing the documents, lower court records, and the order passed by the District Forum, this commission made the following order.  

THIRU.A.K.ANNAMALAI,  JUDICIAL MEMBER

1. The opposite party is the Appellant.

2.             The complainant having joint account with his wife Mrs. Elizabeth Hendricks and also individual account with the opposite party’s Branch and his wife having Fixed Deposit account with the opposite party for a sum of Rs.2,59,031/-  payable on maturity to the survivor by 5.3.2004 and she had requested the opposite party to foreclose the same and to send Rs.2 lakhs to her father’s account in Germany and to give credit the balance amount towards Savings bank joint A/c No. 01193040084. But the opposite party’s bank given credit twice the amount to M/s Elizabeth’s father account since the earlier amount sent was not reached in time and the mistake was noticed only subsequently and thereby the opposite party’s bank withdrawn a  sum of Rs. 1,95,205/- from the complainant’s individual saving bank account without his consent caused mental agony and after issuing legal notice, a consumer complaint came to be filed claiming a sum of Rs. 1,95,205/- with interest due and Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs.20,000/- towards as cost.

3.        The opposite party denied the allegations in the written version admitting the transactions and the account having by the complainant and his wife in joint name contended since the excess amount given credit to the Elizabeth’s father account was not remitted back by the beneficiary and also Mrs. Elizabeth has not taken any step to remit the amount and when the complainant requested to pay the amount, he had not done so. Hence the amount was recovered from the complainant’s individual account having General lien in overall deposits and thereby no deficiency in their service.

 

4.            On perusal of both side material, the District Forum allowing the complaint directed the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.1,95,205/- with 9% p.a. interest from the date of debit of the savings account and Rs.5000/- for mental agony and Rs.2000/- towards cost.

 

5.    Aggrieved by the impugned order, the opposite party come forward with this appeal contending that the District Forum allowing the complaint without consideration of banking customers and practice given by law and considering the circumstances of the case as it requires detailed evidence and an adjudication through a Civil Court only and the District Forum order to be set aside.

6.   We have heard both side arguments, contentions and carefully considered the materials, it is an admitted case of both side that the complainant and his wife having joint account and the complainant’s individual account with the opposite party’s bank and also complainant’s wife closed the Fixed Deposit for Rs.2,59,031 from which a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs to be paid to her father’s account in Germany and the balance amount to be credited to her joint saving Bank A/c No. 01193040084.

 

7.          It is also admitted the bank has wrongfully sent twice  Rs.2 lakhs to the credit of Mrs. Elizabeth’s father account at Germany since earliest amount was not said to be reached and subsequently it was found out that the Elizabeth’s father has received double credit and thereby it was informed  to the opposite party from Nastro cell and the opposite party sent message to his superior officer for the recovery of excess amount credited to the private account to Mr. Dietor Hendricks father of Mrs. Elizabeth was not recovered and the opposite party without any consent or any authorization from the complainant, withdrawn a sum of Rs.1,95,205/- from the individual account of A/c No.  10237903963  these details are not disputed by the opposite party and only contended since having general lien over the complainant’s and his wife’s deposits excersing the same and the amount was recovered.

 

8.        But they have not proved that the General Lien was exercised by way of any contractor doing so and they are having right to recover such amount from the complainant’s individual account without any intimation or authorization from him to do so and thereby is clear that there was deficiency in service on their part and the opposite party instead of proceeding against Elizabeth who had given instruction to transfer found to her father’s account and having the joint account with the opposite party and recovering the amount from the joint account and of no money is available in the joint account holder’s account, instead of proceeding against concerned parties, as per the law, the opposite party un-authorisely withdrawn the amount from individual’s account of the complainant and thereby they had deficiency in service in which finding of the District Forum, we are in full agreement and eventhough the appellant relied upon various reported judgments.

 

9.           In this regard, there is no specific case to show how they are entitled for exercising such lien in the particular case without having any agreement or contract with the complaint and failed to prove and thereby we are in concurrence with the finding of the District Forum as per as the award of compensation and cost is concerned, the District Forum awarded Rs.5000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs.2000/- as cost which are normal and could not be considered as excessive or abnormal while considering all circumstances of the case, thereby in all respects appeal deserves to be dismissed as devoid of merits. Accordingly,

 

                In the result, the appeal is dismissed by confirming the order of the District Forum passed in CC 15/2007 dated 12.8.2010.

 

                No order as to costs in this appeal.

 

 

P.BAKIYAVATHI                    A.K.ANNAMALAI                          R.REGUPATHI

   MEMBER                             JUDICIAL MEMBER                          PRESIDENT