BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM (UNDER CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986), MEDAK AT SANGAREDDY

                   Present: Sri P.V.Subrahmanyam, B.A.,B.L., PRESIDENT

                                   Sri Mekala Narsimha Reddy, M.A.,LL.B.,      

                                                               P.G.D.C.P.L. Male Member

                                   Smt Meena Ramanathan, B.Com., Lady Member

Thursday, the 25^th day of   March, 2010

                                                CC.No. 22 of  2009

Between:

Ch. Balakistaiah  S/o Narayana,

Age: 59 years, Occ: Retired,

H.No. 3-5-76/3/3, Opp: St. Mary’s

High School, Sangareddy, Medak District.                       ….. Complainant

And

1.     Sri. K. Umameshwarrao S/o K. Peri Sastry,

Circle Auditor, State Bank of India,

Local Head Office, Hyderabad.

2.     The Branch Manager,

State Bank of India, Sadashivpet Branch,

Medak District.

3.     Mr. Mysura Mahesh Kumar,

M.S. Civil Surgeon, Zaheerabad.

4.     The Chief General Manager,

State Bank of India, Local Head Office,

Bank Street, Koti, Hyderabad.

5.     Chairman,

State Bank of India,

RRB & LH Community Service Dept.,

Corporate Centre, Madam Cama road,

Mumbai, Maharashtra, 400021.                               ....Opposite parties

This case came up for final hearing before us in the presence Sri. C. Vinod Reddy, advocate for complainant and Sri. Joshi Narayana Rao, Advocate for opposite parties No. 1, 2 and 4,opoiste party No. 3 and 5 being called absent,   upon hearing the arguments of both sides, on perusing the record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this forum delivered the following

O R D E R

(Per Sri. P.V. Subrahmanyam, President)

This complaint is filed Under Section 12 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to direct the opposite parties to discharge the complainant from payment of the OD amount as per statement of account of Rs.30,000/- and to pay Rs.1,70,000/- towards expenses for correspondence and conveyance,  to go round the bank and to direct opposite party No. 1,2, 4 and 5 to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- to the complainant towards damages and to award costs.

                   The averments in the complaint in brief are as follows:

1.                 The complainant is a retired government servant. Opposite party No. 3, a neighbor of the complainant, claimed himself to be a doctor by profession and stated that he is dealing with big projects and he has also acquaintance with branch managers of State Bank of India. Later he took the complainant to opposite party No. 2, when opposite party No. 1 was branch manager there in and introduced opposite party No. 1 and requested to open a Current Account in joint names. Opposite party No. 1 informed the complainant that opposite party No. 3 is a gentlemen and noble person and  if any amounts are given  re-payment is assured  and as per the instructions if any transactions are to be dealt with, they must be dealt  jointly. The complainant trusted the words of opposite party No. 1 and signed the account opening form, later the account was opened. The complainant came to know that opposite party No. 3, who is the joint account holder, has taken  cheque book from opposite party No. 2 bank, without knowledge and signature of the complainant, as such the complainant requested opposite party No. 2( when opposite party No. 1 was its branch manager) vide his letter dated 21.07.2008 and also informed that if any transaction arises the complainant is not responsible. At that time complainant was not aware of the Current Account number which was jointly opened. The complainant submitted an application on 08.09.2008 to opposite party No. 2 under RTI Act for furnishing joint account number of the complainant and opposite party No. 3 and also action taken on his earlier letter dated 21.07.2008. Opposite party No. 2 replied on 10.10.2008 stating  that as the account is joint instructions of both the account holders are necessary for closure  of the account  and also informed that the account is in debit balance of Rs.27,769/- + interest and both the account holders are responsible for re-payment. Copy of the statement of account was given to the complainant with an advise that he may prefer appeal against the order to the appellate authority i.e Chief Manager, SBI, Koti,Hyderabad within thirty days. On 25.09.2008 the complainant made an application to opposite party No. 2 for details of cheque book in respect of account No: 30103152262 opened in the joint names as to whom the cheque book was issued. The complainant further made an application on 31.10.2008 under RTI Act to opposite party No. 2 stating that he has not authorized the bank to provide OD nor requested to issue cheque book without maintaining the funds and also informed that the bank has no business to sanction OD without request of joint account holder. The complainant suspects the involvement of the then branch manager opposite party NO. 1 with opposite party No. 3 and requested to furnish attested copies of joint current account open form, application for sanction of OD as there is no name of the joint account holder in the statement of account. A copy of the application was marked to the Chief General Manager (Network- 1) Central Public Information Officer, SBI Local head office, Hyderabad – 95. On 23.10.2008 the General Manager has given a reply showing reference letter dated 26.09.2008 and informed that cheque book was issued to the representative (Bearer) of the depositors and also given the address of opposite party No. 1 as he is presently working as circle auditor of SBI, LHO, Hyderabad and also informed that the complainant may prefer an appeal to appellate authority i.e. C.G.M., SBI LHO, Koti, Hyderabad. On 25.11.2008 G.M. has given a reply under RTI Act giving  reference of letter dated 30.10.2008 submitted to opposite party No. 2 and a copy to CGM, Hyderabad along with account opening form  and also informed that authorization letter to receive the cheque book is not traceable at the branch and also informed that no application was received for sanction of the over draft. Aggrieved by the decision of CPIO the complainant made an appeal on 11.11.2008 to CGM, appellant authority under the Information Act alleging that opposite party No. 3 in collusion with opposite party No. 1 has presented cheque No. 739511 through SBI, Sangareddy Branch and without maintaining funds in the account nor without a request letter of joint applicants, cheque amount of RS.30,000 was debited to the account resulting in OD of that particular account, even if the customers maintain the amount there would be lot of delay payment of the amount but in the present case without any letter of request to grant OD facility nor request for issuance of cheque book, cheque book was issued and as per the statement of account joint account was opened on 18.12.2006 and the cheque book was issued on 18.07.2006 when the account was not opened how cheque book was issued. Therefore the information furnished by CPIO is not correct and requested to make an enquiry and also informed that there is every possibility of collusion of opposite party No.1 with opposite party No.3. Requisition letter for issue of cheque book is stated to be not available in the branch which clearly shows fraud on the complainant in order to cause loss to him. On 12.12.2008 the CGM appellate authority has given a reply giving reference dated 11.11.2008 informing that application is not maintainable as the same is filed during the pendency of application before the CPIO. On 26.12.2008 the CGM appellant authority has given reply to the complainant giving the reference appeal dated 01.12.2008 and informed that the appeal has been considered as a grievance / complaint (out side the purview of RTI Act ) and it has been forwarded to the customer grievance redress Cell for further necessary action, furnishing the address of the said redress cell. On 15.01.2009 the complainant has made a complaint against opposite party No. 1 for colluding with opposite party No. 3 and causing loss to him to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/-  and to intimate the  action taken against him, to the manager Customs Grievance Redress Cell, SBI LHO, Koti, Hyderabad marking a copy to opposite party No. 5 narrating the facts. A reminder was sent to on 02.02.2009 mentioning the reference of the earlier petition dated 15.01.2009. Another reminder was also sent on 30.03.2009; but no action is taken nor any reply is given. On 09.03.2009 the complainant issued a notice to the opposite party No. 1 informing that police issued FIR NO. 42/09 dated 18.02.2009 against him and also informed that he has trusted the manager of the bank by seeing the name of the bank but the manager is helping the mischievous persons and there by opposite party No. 1 has committed breach of trust and deficiency in service and claimed Rs.1,00,000/- for causing mental agony and Rs.5,00,000/- for the loss suffered by him. Opposite party No. 1 having received the notice kept silent which shows his negligent and adamant attitude. Opposite party No. 1 without verifying whether opposite party No., 3 is a civil surgeon or not and without verifying his Pan number in income tax office, in collusion with opposite party No. 3 introduced him to the complainant as a doctor and gave a good picture about him. Cheque book was also issued by opposite party NO. 1 without even a requisition and OD facility was also provided without applications of sanction of OD. Opposite party No. 2 is a made a party as joint account is held with opposite party No. 2 . Opposite party No. 3 is a made a party because he is co-account holder and played mischief in collusion with opposite party NO. 1. Opposite party Nos. 4 and 5  are made parties as they are controlling and higher officials of the State Bank of India under whom opposite party No. 1 is working. Even after several representations opposite party No. 4, 5 have not taken any action against opposite party No. 1, as such all the opposite parties are responsible for the act of opposite party No. 1. Hence the complaint.

2.                The complaint is resisted by opposite parties No. 1,2 & 4 by filing version of opposite party No. 2 which is adopted by opposite parties No. 1 and 4 under a memo. The contents of the version in brief are as follows:

                   The opposite party Nos. 1, 2 and 4 are not aware whether the complainant is a retired government servant from revenue department and opposite party No. 3 is his neighbor and that opposite party No.3 claimed himself to be a doctor by profession etc. It is denied that opposite party No. 3 took the complainant to the opposite party No. 2 bank and opposite party No. 1 was working as branch manager and introduced opposite party No. 1 and requested to open a current account in joint name and that opposite party No., 1 informed the complainant that opposite party No. 3 is a noble gentlemen etc., In fact the complainant himself approached opposite party no. 2 while he was working as Deputy Tahsildar Civil Supplies to open a current account and  accordingly by taking  signature of introducer,  account was opened in joint names of the complainant and opposite party No. 3, during the tenure of opposite party No. 1. Opposite party No. 1 has not introduced opposite party No.3 to the complainant nor he informed about his integrity as both of them themselves approached opposite party No. 2 and opened E or S account. As opposite party No. 3 is one of the account holders cheque book has been issued to him by opposite party No. 2 but it is denied that it was issued without the knowledge and signature of the complaint as the account itself is E or S account as such the signature of the joint account holders not required. General Manager SBI sent information to the complainant on 28.04.2009 informing that no Over draft was sanctioned against the joint current account and the over draft has occurred due to in advertent payment of cheque at their Sangareddy Branch and the OD amount has been re-credited to the current account as such the question of sanction of over draft in the name of opposite party No. 3 does not arise. Suspicion of the complainant about the involvement of opposite party No. 1 with opposite party No. 3 is denied. In fact over draft was not sanctioned either by opposite party No. 1 or by opposite party No.2 but the same is inadvertently done SBH, Sangareddy as such the same was closed and opposite party No. 2 is in no way responsible for the grievance of the complainant. The complainant suffering loss of Rs.5,00,000/- is denied. There is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party Nos. 1,2, 4 and 5 and hence the complaint may be dismissed with costs.

3.                Evidence affidavits of both parties filed. In order to prove the averments in the respective pleadings Exs. A1 to A15 are marked on behalf of the complainant. Exs. B1 is marked on behalf of opposite party Nos. 1,2,4 and 5. Oral arguments of both sides heard. Complainant’s advocate filed a memo to treat the complaint as written arguments. Written argument of opposite party No. 2 filed. Opposite parties No. 1 and 4 adopted the same under a memo.

          The point for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled for an order to discharge him from payment of OD amount of Rs.30,000/- and for Rs.1,70,000/- towards expenses for correspondence and  conveyance and for Rs.1,00,000/- as damages, as prayed in the complaint?

Point:

4.                The complainant’s case is that he is a retired government servant and opposite party No. 3 is his neighbor and he has taken the complainant to opposite party No. 2 bank where opposite party No. 1 was Branch manager and opposite party No. 1 has informed the complainant that opposite party No. 3 is a gentlemen and a noble person and if any amounts are given to him re-payment is certain. It is the further case of the complainant that by informing so opposite party No. 1 requested the complainant to open a current account in joint names of the complainant and opposite party No. 3 and trusting his words he signed the account opening form. According to the complainant thereafter without his knowledge opposite party No. 3 has taken a cheque book from the bank and coming to know of the same the complainant addressed a letter to opposite party No. 2 bank when opposite party No. 1 its manager informing that if any transaction arises the complainant is not responsible. For an application of the complainant under RTI Act a reply was given stating that as the account is joint instructions of both the account holders are necessary for closure of the account and further informed that the account is in debit balance of Rs.27,769/- + interest and both the joint account holders are responsible for re-payment. It is stated by the complainant that he has never authorized the bank to provide OD nor requested to issue cheque book without maintaining funds and the complainant suspects collusion between opposite parties No. 1 and 3. Therefore according to the complainant he need not pay the OD amount Rs. 30,000/-. According to him he went round the bank several times therefore he is entitled to Rs.1,70,000/- towards expenses for correspondence and conveyance  and Rs.1,00,000/- towards damages for mental agony.

                    In gist according to the complainant opposite parties No. 1 and 3 colluded together and cheated the complainant by playing fraud on him. During arguments also the learned counsel for the complainant has stated that there is fraud, mischief, undue influence, coercion and misrepresentation on the part of opposite parties No. 1 and 3 towards the complainant right from the inception of opening of the account till granting OD by opposite party No. 1 to opposite party No. 3.

The Hon’ble National Commission has held that such cases are outside the jurisdiction of the Consumer forums. While deciding a case between R.R. Gopal @ R. Raja Gopal vs. The chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board reported in I(1996) CPJ 143 (NC) it is held  in paragraph 12 as follows: “The legislature by using the words ‘deficiency’ and ‘negligence’ clearly intended that the remedy for intentional malicious acts are out side the jurisdiction of consumer forums under the Act”.

                   In anther decision in the case of Ram Khanna vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., reported in III(1996) CPJ 89 (NC) also a similar view is expressed and further held that it is not proper to go in to the merits of the complaint in such cases and the complainant must be relegated to civil court.

        Therefore in the circumstance of the case, especially in view of the ratio in the decisions of the Hon’ble National Commission, it is held that the complainant is not entitled to any relief in this forum. The point is answered against the complainant.

5.                In the result the complaint is dismissed. No costs.

Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum this          25^th                  day of March, 2010.

         Sd/-                                      Sd/-                                     Sd/-

PRESIDENT                     MALE MEMBER                     LADY MEMBER

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witness examined

For the complainant :                                                   For the opposite parties:

-Nil-                                                                                         -Nil-

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For the  complainant :                                                  For the opposite parties:

                                                                                                                     Sd/-

                                                                                                            PRESIDENT

Copy to:

1)     The Complainant

2)     The Opposite parties

3)     Spare copy                     Copy delivered to the Complainant/

Opposite parties on ______________

Dis.No.              /2010, dt.