BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

PRESENT:

SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENA KUMARI .A : MEMBER

SMT. S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

O.P.No. 479/2003 Filed on 28/11/2003

Dated: 30..10..2009

Complainant:

Sunilraj, Palamattathil, Avarma, Perumpadavam – P.O., Kottayam.

(By Adv. S. Reghukumar)

Opposite parties:

1. State Bank of Travancore, Head Office Poojappura, Thiruvananthapuram.

    

2. State Bank of Travancore, Main Branch, Statue, Thiruvananthapuram.

    

   (By Adv. M. Nizamudeen)

This O.P having been heard on 30..09..2009, the Forum on 30..10..2009 delivered the following:

ORDER

SHRI.G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT:

The facts leading to the filing of the complaint are that complainant had availed a loan of Rs.4.25 lakhs from the SC/ST Corporation for purchase of a vehicle, that the complainant purchased a Toyota Qualis wagon bearing Reg.No.KL-5-K-3524, that the said vehicle was purchased for the livelihood of the complainant, that thereafter the required permit for plying the vehicle as a taxi was obtained and the permit was allotted to the vehicle, that a tender was floated by Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) regarding hiring the vehicle, that the complainant placed his tender and he was selected, and that an agreement to the said effect was entered into between the complainant and BSNL on 10^th June 2002 regarding the hiring of vehicle from 10/6/2002 to 31/10/2003. It is submitted by the complainant that the vehicle during the said period, ran 80369 km for BSNL alone, that on 3/10/2003 BSNL called for tenders for hiring of the vehicles for the next year, that the tender document has to be accompanied by an EMD for Rs.2,500/- by Demand Draft drawn in fvour of A.O (CMTS) BSNL, Thiruvananthapuram, that the complainant approached the 2^nd opposite party – State Bank of Travancore, Main Branch, Statue for obtaining a DD on 28/10/2003 for Rs. 2,500/-, that the complainant filled in the form for issue of DD in which it was specifically stated that DD should be in favour of A.O (CMTS) BSNL, Thiruvananthapuram. The DD was obtained and the same was submitted along with the tender documents to the BSNL stating that "The Demand Draft bearing No.12881 dated 28/10/2003 for Rs.2,500/- drawn on SBT and submitted by you towards EMD along with tender documents for hiring of vehicles on 29/10/2003 is in favour of A.O (Cash) GMTD, BSNL, Tvpm. But as per the NIT the DD should be in favour of A.O (CMTS) BSNL, Tvpm. Hence your tender is not favourably considered and the D.D is returned herewith". It is submitted by the complainant that on rejection of the tender of the complainant the tender was settled in favour of other parties since there were only two tenders, that the loss occassioned due to the rejection of tender of the complainant is Rs.4,25,000/-, that the said amount was worked out based on evaluation of previous years statement of accounts duly verified by the BSNL, and that due to rejection of tender the vehicle was lying idle and the complainant is not in a position to remit the monthly installments of Rs.8,500/- to the institution from which the loan has been availed. There is deficiency in service and negligence on the part of opposite parties. Hence this complaint to direct opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.4,25,000/- as compensation towards loss and Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation towards mental agony and distress suffered by the complaiannt and Rs.5,000/- towards cost.

2. Opposite parties entered appearance and filed version contending that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts, that the opposite parties are not aware of the allegations or statements in paras 1 & 2 of the complaint, that the matters agitated in paras 3 & 4 of the complaint are beyond the knowledge of the opposite parties. It is submitted by the opposite parties that on receipt of the banker's cheque requisition from the complainant, the official of the 2^nd opposite party made the relevant entries in the computer and the entries in the banker's cheque issued to the complainant were made by the computer, that the error in stating the address of the person in whose favour the banker's cheque was drawn was a computer error and the same was not occassioned due to any lapses, negligence, default or deficiency in service of any official of the opposite parties. It is submitted by the opposite parties that the banker's cheque was tendered to the complainant and he had not raised any complaint or objection or pointed out any error or mistake in the banker's cheque at the time of accepting it under his acknowledgment, that the complainant was duty bound to verify the contents and entries of the banker's cheque and point out any error or mistake or discrepancy in the same for rectification if any required, since the complainant did not raise any objection he is estopped from making any allegation or claim against the opposite parties. The loss occassioned due to the rejection of the tender of the complaint is totally baseless and absolutely false and imaginery. Opposite parties have not caused any mental agony or monetary loss to the complainant. Opposite parties have not committed any deficiency in service or negligence in relation to the allegations in the complaint. Hence opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3. The points that arise for consideration are:

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

    

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get compensation. If so, at what amount?

    

3. Whether the complainant is entitled to get cost, If so, at what amount?

4. In support of the complaint, complainant has filed proof affidavit as PW1 and Exts. P1 & P2 were marked. One witness has been examined as PW2 and Exts. X1 to X3 were marked. Both the complainant and the witness have been cross examined by the opposite parties. In rebuttal, opposite party has filed counter affidavit as DW1 and DW1 has been cross examined by the complainant.

5. Points (i) to (iii) : Admittedly, on 28/10/2003 complainant applied for a Demand Draft for Rs.2,500/- from the opposite party Bank. It has been the case of the complainant that he has filled in the form for issue of D.D in which it was specifically stated that the D.D should be in favour of A.O (CMTS), BSNL, Thiruvananthapuram, but opposite party issued D.D in favour of A.O (Cash) GMTD, BSNL, Thiruvananthapuram. It has also been the case of the complainant that when submitted the said D.D along with tender documents for hiring of the vehicles to the BSNL, the same was rejected by the BSNL, solely for the reason that D.D was drawn in favour of A.O (cash) GMTD, BSNL, Tvpm. and not in favour of A.O (CMTS), BSNL, Tvpm. Ext.P2 is the D.D in dispute which is seen drawn in favour of Accounts Officer (cash) BSNL, GMTD, Tvpm. The Ext.D2 D.D bearing No.12881 dated 28/10/2003 for Rs.2,500/- is seen issued by State Bank of Travancore, Tvpm (Main) Branch. Ext.P1 is the communication sent by BSNL to the complainant. The communication is reproduced below:

“The demand draft bearing No.12881 dated 28/10/2003 for Rs.2,500/- drawn on SBT and submitted by you towards EMD along with tender documents for hiring of vehicles on 29/10/03 is in favour of A.O (Cash) GMTD, BSNL, Tvpm. But as per the NIT, the D.D should be in favour of A.O (CMTS) BSNL, Tvpm. Hence your tender is not favourably considered and the D.D is returned herewith”. As submitted Supra, the stand of the complainant is that he had filled the form for issue of D.D in favour of A.O (CMTS) BSNL, which is not denied by the opposite parties in their version or affidavit. It is argued by opposite parties that on receipt of the banker's cheque requisition from the complainant, the officials of the 2^nd opposite party made the relevant entries in the computer and the entries in the banker's cheque issued to the complainant were made by the computer, and that the error in stating the address of the person in whose favour the banker's cheque was drawn was a computer error and the same was not occassioned due to any lapses, negligence, default or deficiency in service of any officials of the opposite parties. It is further submitted by opposite parties that the banker's cheque was tendered to the complainant and he had not raised any complaint/objection or pointed out any error or mistake in the banker's cheque at the time of accepting it under his acknowledgment. In his cross examination, complainant has deposed that he has studied upto Pre-degree and he himself has filled the form (chellan) for issue of D.D. It is further deposed by the complainant that he had received the Ext.P2 D.D directly from the bank and he did not point out any error in the D.D at the time of receiving it. In this context, it is to be mentioned that complainant is not an illeterate, he has studied upto Pre-degree, he ought to have, verified the said D.D at the time of receiving the same from the bank, pointed out error if any crept in the D.D to the issuing authority and got it corrected before sending it to the proper person in whose favour it was drawn. Complainant was not vigilant in verifying the D.D before sending the same to the addressee concerned. Opposite parties have no case that complainant has not furnished correct address nor have opposite parties a case that they have issued D.D to the address submitted by the complainant. The main plea in the version/affidavit submitted by opposite parties is that the error in stating the address of the person in whose favour the banker's cheque was drawn was a computer error. In her cross examination, on being asked, was it not due to the wrong entry made in the computer by the computer operator, 2^nd opposite party had issued a D.D in the wrong address, DW1 (2^nd O.P), has deposed that wrong entry was not made in the computer. DW1's deposition contradicts the version that the error in stating the address of the person in whose favour the banker's cheque was drawn was a computer error. Although opposite party had admitted the receipt of the application for issue of D.D from the complainant, opposite party did not produce the same in order to convince that the D.D was issued in the name and address as shown in the application submitted by the complainant. Eventhough opposite party admits in the version that the error stating in the address of the person in whose favour the banker's cheque was drawn was a computer error, it should be borne in mind that the said computer was owned and operated by the opposite parties and not by the complainant. In view of the above, we find there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in issuing the said D.D. If complainant had verified the address stated in the D.D at the time of receiving the same, he could have got D.D corrected instantaneously from the opposite party. Complainant was not vigilant in verifying the same. Thereby we find there is fault on the part of complainant also in not checking D.D when received the same from the bank. He was equally responsible for the loss occassioned due to the rejection of tender. In view of the matter we need not discuss other Exts.X1 to X3. In view of the foregoing discussion and in the light of the evidence available on records, we are of the considered opinion that justice will be well met, if opposite party is directed to refund the D.D amount of Rs.2,500/- along with compensation of Rs.5,000/- and cost of Rs.1,000/- to complainant.

In the result, complaint is partly allowed. 2^nd opposite party shall refund the D.D amount of Rs.2,500/- to complainant. 2^nd opposite party shall also pay the complainant a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards compensation along with cost of Rs.1,000/-. Time for compliance two months from the date of receipt of this order.

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, this the 30^th day of September, 2009.

G. SIVAPRASAD PRESIDENT.

BEENA KUMARI. A : MEMBER

S.K. SREELA : MEMBER ad.

O.P.No. 479/2003

APPENDIX

I. Complainant's witness:

PW1 : P. Sunil Raj

PW2 : Surendran Nair

II. Complainant's documents:

P1 : Photocopy of letter dated 3/11/2003 issued to the complainant by the Asst. General Manager (Admn) BSNL, Tvpm.

P2 : Photocopy of the Bankers' cheque (DD) bearing No.D12881 dated 28/10/2003 for an amount of Rs.2,500/- issued by the SBT., Main Branch, Tvpm.

III. Opposite parties' witness:

DW1 : K.P. Valsala

IV. Opposite parties' documents: NIL

5. Court witness : NIL

    

VI. Court Exhibit:

X1 : Photocopy of log book from 10/6/02 to 31/10/03

X2 : Photocopy of notice inviting Tender No.IMPCS/vehicle/03-04/dated 16/10/2003, Tvpm- 33.

X3 : Photocopy of motor vehicle bill for the month of January – 2003 issued by complainant.

PRESIDENT

ad.

 

 


 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM


 

PRESENT:


 

SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENA KUMARI .A : MEMBER

SMT. S.K. SREELA : MEMBER


 

O.P.No. 479/2003 Filed on 28/11/2003


 

Dated: 30..10..2009

Complainant:

Sunilraj, Palamattathil, Avarma, Perumpadavam – P.O., Kottayam.


 

(By Adv. S. Reghukumar)

 

Opposite parties:


 

1. State Bank of Travancore, Head Office Poojappura, Thiruvananthapuram.

    

2. State Bank of Travancore, Main Branch, Statue, Thiruvananthapuram.

    

   (By Adv. M. Nizamudeen)


 

This O.P having been heard on 30..09..2009, the Forum on 30..10..2009 delivered the following:


 

ORDER


 

SHRI.G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT:


 

The facts leading to the filing of the complaint are that complainant had availed a loan of Rs.4.25 lakhs from the SC/ST Corporation for purchase of a vehicle, that the complainant purchased a Toyota Qualis wagon bearing Reg.No.KL-5-K-3524, that the said vehicle was purchased for the livelihood of the complainant, that thereafter the required permit for plying the vehicle as a taxi was obtained and the permit was allotted to the vehicle, that a tender was floated by Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) regarding hiring the vehicle, that the complainant placed his tender and he was selected, and that an agreement to the said effect was entered into between the complainant and BSNL on 10^th June 2002 regarding the hiring of vehicle from 10/6/2002 to 31/10/2003. It is submitted by the complainant that the vehicle during the said period, ran 80369 km for BSNL alone, that on 3/10/2003 BSNL called for tenders for hiring of the vehicles for the next year, that the tender document has to be accompanied by an EMD for Rs.2,500/- by Demand Draft drawn in fvour of A.O (CMTS) BSNL, Thiruvananthapuram, that the complainant approached the 2^nd opposite party – State Bank of Travancore, Main Branch, Statue for obtaining a DD on 28/10/2003 for Rs. 2,500/-, that the complainant filled in the form for issue of DD in which it was specifically stated that DD should be in favour of A.O (CMTS) BSNL, Thiruvananthapuram. The DD was obtained and the same was submitted along with the tender documents to the BSNL stating that "The Demand Draft bearing No.12881 dated 28/10/2003 for Rs.2,500/- drawn on SBT and submitted by you towards EMD along with tender documents for hiring of vehicles on 29/10/2003 is in favour of A.O (Cash) GMTD, BSNL, Tvpm. But as per the NIT the DD should be in favour of A.O (CMTS) BSNL, Tvpm. Hence your tender is not favourably considered and the D.D is returned herewith". It is submitted by the complainant that on rejection of the tender of the complainant the tender was settled in favour of other parties since there were only two tenders, that the loss occassioned due to the rejection of tender of the complainant is Rs.4,25,000/-, that the said amount was worked out based on evaluation of previous years statement of accounts duly verified by the BSNL, and that due to rejection of tender the vehicle was lying idle and the complainant is not in a position to remit the monthly installments of Rs.8,500/- to the institution from which the loan has been availed. There is deficiency in service and negligence on the part of opposite parties. Hence this complaint to direct opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.4,25,000/- as compensation towards loss and Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation towards mental agony and distress suffered by the complaiannt and Rs.5,000/- towards cost.


 


 

2. Opposite parties entered appearance and filed version contending that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts, that the opposite parties are not aware of the allegations or statements in paras 1 & 2 of the complaint, that the matters agitated in paras 3 & 4 of the complaint are beyond the knowledge of the opposite parties. It is submitted by the opposite parties that on receipt of the banker's cheque requisition from the complainant, the official of the 2^nd opposite party made the relevant entries in the computer and the entries in the banker's cheque issued to the complainant were made by the computer, that the error in stating the address of the person in whose favour the banker's cheque was drawn was a computer error and the same was not occassioned due to any lapses, negligence, default or deficiency in service of any official of the opposite parties. It is submitted by the opposite parties that the banker's cheque was tendered to the complainant and he had not raised any complaint or objection or pointed out any error or mistake in the banker's cheque at the time of accepting it under his acknowledgment, that the complainant was duty bound to verify the contents and entries of the banker's cheque and point out any error or mistake or discrepancy in the same for rectification if any required, since the complainant did not raise any objection he is estopped from making any allegation or claim against the opposite parties. The loss occassioned due to the rejection of the tender of the complaint is totally baseless and absolutely false and imaginery. Opposite parties have not caused any mental agony or monetary loss to the complainant. Opposite parties have not committed any deficiency in service or negligence in relation to the allegations in the complaint. Hence opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

3. The points that arise for consideration are:

 

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

    

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get compensation. If so, at what amount?

    

3. Whether the complainant is entitled to get cost, If so, at what amount?


 

4. In support of the complaint, complainant has filed proof affidavit as PW1 and Exts. P1 & P2 were marked. One witness has been examined as PW2 and Exts. X1 to X3 were marked. Both the complainant and the witness have been cross examined by the opposite parties. In rebuttal, opposite party has filed counter affidavit as DW1 and DW1 has been cross examined by the complainant.


 

5. Points (i) to (iii) : Admittedly, on 28/10/2003 complainant applied for a Demand Draft for Rs.2,500/- from the opposite party Bank. It has been the case of the complainant that he has filled in the form for issue of D.D in which it was specifically stated that the D.D should be in favour of A.O (CMTS), BSNL, Thiruvananthapuram, but opposite party issued D.D in favour of A.O (Cash) GMTD, BSNL, Thiruvananthapuram. It has also been the case of the complainant that when submitted the said D.D along with tender documents for hiring of the vehicles to the BSNL, the same was rejected by the BSNL, solely for the reason that D.D was drawn in favour of A.O (cash) GMTD, BSNL, Tvpm. and not in favour of A.O (CMTS), BSNL, Tvpm. Ext.P2 is the D.D in dispute which is seen drawn in favour of Accounts Officer (cash) BSNL, GMTD, Tvpm. The Ext.D2 D.D bearing No.12881 dated 28/10/2003 for Rs.2,500/- is seen issued by State Bank of Travancore, Tvpm (Main) Branch. Ext.P1 is the communication sent by BSNL to the complainant. The communication is reproduced below:

“The demand draft bearing No.12881 dated 28/10/2003 for Rs.2,500/- drawn on SBT and submitted by you towards EMD along with tender documents for hiring of vehicles on 29/10/03 is in favour of A.O (Cash) GMTD, BSNL, Tvpm. But as per the NIT, the D.D should be in favour of A.O (CMTS) BSNL, Tvpm. Hence your tender is not favourably considered and the D.D is returned herewith”. As submitted Supra, the stand of the complainant is that he had filled the form for issue of D.D in favour of A.O (CMTS) BSNL, which is not denied by the opposite parties in their version or affidavit. It is argued by opposite parties that on receipt of the banker's cheque requisition from the complainant, the officials of the 2^nd opposite party made the relevant entries in the computer and the entries in the banker's cheque issued to the complainant were made by the computer, and that the error in stating the address of the person in whose favour the banker's cheque was drawn was a computer error and the same was not occassioned due to any lapses, negligence, default or deficiency in service of any officials of the opposite parties. It is further submitted by opposite parties that the banker's cheque was tendered to the complainant and he had not raised any complaint/objection or pointed out any error or mistake in the banker's cheque at the time of accepting it under his acknowledgment. In his cross examination, complainant has deposed that he has studied upto Pre-degree and he himself has filled the form (chellan) for issue of D.D. It is further deposed by the complainant that he had received the Ext.P2 D.D directly from the bank and he did not point out any error in the D.D at the time of receiving it. In this context, it is to be mentioned that complainant is not an illeterate, he has studied upto Pre-degree, he ought to have, verified the said D.D at the time of receiving the same from the bank, pointed out error if any crept in the D.D to the issuing authority and got it corrected before sending it to the proper person in whose favour it was drawn. Complainant was not vigilant in verifying the D.D before sending the same to the addressee concerned. Opposite parties have no case that complainant has not furnished correct address nor have opposite parties a case that they have issued D.D to the address submitted by the complainant. The main plea in the version/affidavit submitted by opposite parties is that the error in stating the address of the person in whose favour the banker's cheque was drawn was a computer error. In her cross examination, on being asked, was it not due to the wrong entry made in the computer by the computer operator, 2^nd opposite party had issued a D.D in the wrong address, DW1 (2^nd O.P), has deposed that wrong entry was not made in the computer. DW1's deposition contradicts the version that the error in stating the address of the person in whose favour the banker's cheque was drawn was a computer error. Although opposite party had admitted the receipt of the application for issue of D.D from the complainant, opposite party did not produce the same in order to convince that the D.D was issued in the name and address as shown in the application submitted by the complainant. Eventhough opposite party admits in the version that the error stating in the address of the person in whose favour the banker's cheque was drawn was a computer error, it should be borne in mind that the said computer was owned and operated by the opposite parties and not by the complainant. In view of the above, we find there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in issuing the said D.D. If complainant had verified the address stated in the D.D at the time of receiving the same, he could have got D.D corrected instantaneously from the opposite party. Complainant was not vigilant in verifying the same. Thereby we find there is fault on the part of complainant also in not checking D.D when received the same from the bank. He was equally responsible for the loss occassioned due to the rejection of tender. In view of the matter we need not discuss other Exts.X1 to X3. In view of the foregoing discussion and in the light of the evidence available on records, we are of the considered opinion that justice will be well met, if opposite party is directed to refund the D.D amount of Rs.2,500/- along with compensation of Rs.5,000/- and cost of Rs.1,000/- to complainant.


 

In the result, complaint is partly allowed. 2^nd opposite party shall refund the D.D amount of Rs.2,500/- to complainant. 2^nd opposite party shall also pay the complainant a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards compensation along with cost of Rs.1,000/-. Time for compliance two months from the date of receipt of this order.

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, this the 30^th day of September, 2009.


 

G. SIVAPRASAD PRESIDENT.


 

BEENA KUMARI. A : MEMBER

 


 

S.K. SREELA : MEMBER ad.

O.P.No. 479/2003

APPENDIX

I. Complainant's witness:

PW1 : P. Sunil Raj

PW2 : Surendran Nair

II. Complainant's documents:

P1 : Photocopy of letter dated 3/11/2003 issued to the complainant by the Asst. General Manager (Admn) BSNL, Tvpm.

P2 : Photocopy of the Bankers' cheque (DD) bearing No.D12881 dated 28/10/2003 for an amount of Rs.2,500/- issued by the SBT., Main Branch, Tvpm.


 

III. Opposite parties' witness:

DW1 : K.P. Valsala


 

IV. Opposite parties' documents: NIL


 

5. Court witness : NIL

    

VI. Court Exhibit:

X1 : Photocopy of log book from 10/6/02 to 31/10/03

X2 : Photocopy of notice inviting Tender No.IMPCS/vehicle/03-04/dated 16/10/2003, Tvpm- 33.

X3 : Photocopy of motor vehicle bill for the month of January – 2003 issued by complainant.


 


 

PRESIDENT