Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/516/2006

M.Murugan - Complainant(s)

Versus

State Bank Of Travancore, - Opp.Party(s)

A.Palaniappan

11 Dec 2017

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing :   04.10.2006

                                                                        Date of Order :   11.12.2017

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

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

 

PRESENT: THIRU. M.MONY, B.Sc., L.L.B. M.L.,                     : PRESIDENT            

                  TMT. K.AMALA, M.A. L.L.B.,                                 : MEMBER I

             DR. T.PAUL RAJASEKARAN, M.A ,D.Min.PGDHRDI, AIII,BCS : MEMBER II                

C.C.NO.516/2006

MONDAY THIS  11^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2017

 

M. Murugan,

No.2, Goya Arunagiri 3^rd Street,

Meersahibpet,

Chennai – 14.                                                               Complainant

                                                                     Vs

The Manager,  

State Bank of Travancore,

Triplicane, Chennai 600 005.                                   Opposite party

 

Counsel for Complainant             :    M/s. Hema Sampath & another             

Counsel for opposite party          :    M/s. S.V.K.Thampi  & others   

ORDER

THIRUMATHI.K.AMALA,   ::    MEMBER-I

 This complaint is filed by the complainant against the opposite party  to pay a sum of Rs.29000/- with interest and also to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards deficiency in service and to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards damages and compensation and to pay cost of the complaint.

1.  The averment of the complaint in brief are as follows:

         The complainant submit that he has savings bank account with the opposite party bank under account No.S.B 57002235042.  The opposite party has duly issued pass book and the complainant also availed the cheque book facility also.   On 29.12.2004 the complainant deposited Rs.30,000/- in his account and the opposite party also effected pass book entry and the bank balance of the complainant was Rs.31,989/-.   Subsequently the complainant issued cheques for various transactions.  On 16.2.2005 the complainant issued a cheque No.6053 for Rs.888/- on 3.3.2005 the issued a cheque No.6054 for Rs.3,000/- and on the same day he also issued another cheque No.6052 for Rs.300/- on 8.3.2005 cheque No.6055 for Rs.18,000/- on 18.3.2005 cheque No.6056 for Rs.1089/-.  Since the complainant was a self employed person and due to pre-occupation he could not go to the bank for effecting entries. 

2.     On 4.7.2005 the complainant deposited a cheque for Rs.5,000/- for encashment through his friend and on 11.7.2005 the complainant went to the opposite party bank and deposited another sum of  Rs.5,000/- and he made enquires with regard to balance in his account.   The complainant was shocked to see that a number of withdrawals had been made on various dates, and those amounts were withdrawn as cash without instance of any cheque.   The complainant had not visited the opposite party bank nor any withdrawn any amount from his account.   The opposite party had debited Rs.16,000/- on 11.1.2005, Rs.6,000/- on 4.3.2005, Rs.2,000/- on 9.5.2005 and Rs.5,000/- on 6.7.2005 from the complainant’s saving bank account.

3.     It is pertinent to point out that whenever there is  a transaction which is not through check transaction the account holder has to produce his pass book and he has to till the withdrawal challan, further a savings bank holder who has the cheque book facility has to have his account transaction only through cheque.  The opposite party bank will not allow the complainant to withdraw any amount through withdrawal challen.  The complainant  on knowing the same immediately requested the opposite party to enquire into the matter and effect credit of Rs.29,000/- into his account.   Though the complainant visited the opposite party in person and made various request but he was fobbed off by the opposite parties vague reply.   On 18.7.2005 the complainant wrote a letter to the opposite party and the same was sent through registered post to the opposite party.   The opposite party though he received the same has chosen to ignore it.   The complainant who is a self employed business men, he was under the wrong belief that his hard earned money would be safe in the opposite party bank.   The loss of the huge sum of Rs.29000/- is a big blow which would totally wrack his life and business.   The opposite party have miserably failed to do so which amounts to deficiency in service.     The complainant issued a legal notice  to the opposite party on 18.8.2005 calling upon them to set right the account and credit Rs.29000/- into it immediately with interest at 12% p.a. from the withdrawals till the date of realization and to pay Rs.5000/- towards damages.  The pass book entry made by the opposite party on 29.12.2004 the complainant bank balance was Rs.31,989/- and the statement of account issued by the opposite party on 13.7.2005 shows that the brought forward amount was Rs.31,489/- under what head or for what purpose the opposite party has deducted Rs.500/- has not been shown.   Without any valid reasons the opposite party has deducted  Rs.500/- from the complainants saving bank account.   The attitude of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service which caused mental agony and hardship to the complainant.

4.    The brief averments in the Written Version filed by the  opposite party is as follows:

      The  opposite party denies each and every allegations except those that are specifically admitted herein.  The opposite party submit that the complainant has filed the above complaint only with the ulterior motive of enriching himself  unduly adopting foul and unscrupulous methods.   Further the opposite party state that  the complainant opened a Savings Bank account on 9.12.1998 with account No.4085.  At that time he was issued with a passbook in which the entries were being made manually.   The complainant was withdrawing money from his account only by submitting withdrawal slips at that time.  On 9.11.2000 the opposite party bank was computerized and the complainant’s account number was changed as 104085.  A new pass book bearing new account number was also issued to the complainant.   The entries in the said pass book were to be made through the computer printer only.   The complainant has produced the said pass boo it could be seen that till 29.12.2004 the complainant was withdrawing money from his account only by presenting withdrawal forms.   It is true that the balance in the complainant’s account as on 20.12.2004 was Rs.31,989/- including the sum of Rs.30,000/- deposited by him on that date.   

5.     As regards the contents of para-2 of the complaint, the opposite party states that it issued a cheque book containing 10 leaves bearing Nos.00651 to 006060 to the complainant on 3.4.2003.  Thus it could be seen that even when he was having the cheque facility the complainant was withdrawing money from his account only by submitting withdrawal slips.   He was not  using the cheque leaves for operating his account for about 21 months from the date of issue of the cheque book to him by the opposite party bank.   The complainant used the first leaf of the cheque book only on 6.1.2005.   It is pertinent to point out that 8.1.2005 is that date on which the opposite party bank was brought under core banking system.   The opposite party states that ever since the implementation of core banking system from 8.1.2005, it was facing problems in printing pass books.   The pass book to be used for core banking system is different from the one which was being used when the accounts were computerized.    After the introduction of core banking system the pass books could not be updated manually.   As the complainant is known to the single window operator of the opposite party bank, the opposite party bank made payments to the complainant without making corresponding entries in his passbook.  The complainant was permitted to withdraw money by producing withdrawal slips only as a matter of customer service in practical baking.

6.     As regards the allegations contained in para-3 of the complaint, the opposite party states that the complainant was only personally coming to the opposite party bank every time.  On 6.1.2005 the complainant presented the 1^st leaf of the cheque book issued to him and as withdrawn a sum of Rs.500/- from his account.  On 11.1.2005 he withdraw a sum of Rs.16000/- by presenting a withdrawal slip.   In the said withdrawal slip the account number was shows as 104085.   All the time of withdrawing the money the complainant had affixed his signature on the reverse side of the withdrawal slip dated 11.1.2005 in the presence of the single window operator of the opposite party.   As stated supra the pass book could not be updated by the opposite party because of the technical difficulty faced by the introduction of core banking system.   Similarly the complainant had presented withdrawal slips on 4.3.2005, 9.5.2005, 6.7.2005 and 14.7.2005 cheque leaves bearing Nos.006052 & 006054 on 3.3.2005 and had withdrawn money from his account.    But taking into account that the complainant is a known customer of the opposite party bank, the complainant was permitted to withdraw money by presenting withdrawal forms.   It is blatant lie to state that the complainant has not visited the opposite party bank on 11.1.2005, 4.3.2005, 9.5.2005 and 6.7.2005.  He had come to the opposite party bank on all those days and on 3.3.2005 and had withdrawn money from his account by presenting withdrawal slips and cheques.   It is relevant to point out that on 3.3.2005 the complainant had come personally to the opposite party bank and had withdrawn a sum of Rs.300/- from his account by presenting cheque leaf bearing No.006052 and a sum of Rs.3000/- by presenting cheque leaf No.006054.   The signatures found on the reverse of those cheque leaves would confirm that the complainant had come to the opposite party bank personally on 3.3.2005.  

7.     Further the opposite party also state that  only after 2.1. months after the complainant was issued with a cheque book he used the 1^st cheque leaf for operating his account and till then he was only withdrawing money by submitting withdrawal slips.  It is relevant to point out that the complainant has admitted the withdrawals made by him from 3.4.2003 to 5.1.2005 by submitting withdrawal slips and the withdrawal by him on 3.3.2005 by presenting cheque leaves bearing No.006052 and 006054. The opposite party has already explained in detail the reason why the withdrawals were not entered in the pass book issued to the complainant after 8.1.2005.  For the good gesture in permitting him to withdraw money by not insisting on production of cheque leaves for withdrawing money the complainant has come forward with the false complaint.   As regards the allegations contained in para-6 of the complaint,  the opposite party state that the complaint itself is false and the complainant is trying to cheat the opposite party by making false and frivolous claim.   He could not have suffered any severe mental stress and agony.  By making those allegations he wants this forum to believe that he has lost a sum of Rs.29000/-.   To the legal notice dated 18.8.2005 and reply dated14.9.2005 was sent by the opposite party bank.   As regards the contents of para-8 of the complaint, the opposite party bank states that the complainant has withdrawn a sum of Rs.500/- on 6.1.2005 presenting the 1^st leaf of the cheque book  bearing No.006051 issued to him.   There was no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party bank and the complaint has to be dismissed in limine. 

8.     In order to prove the averments of the complaint, the complainant has filed proof affidavit as his evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 marked.  Proof affidavit of opposite party filed and  Ex.B1 to Ex.B14  marked on the side of the opposite parties. 

9.      The points for the consideration is:  

Whether the complainant is entitled to  a sum of Rs.29,000/-  & Rs.500/-  along with 12% inertest from the date of withdrawal till realization as prayed?

10. ON POINT:

Heard the arguments of complainant counsel.  Perused the records. Admittedly the complainant is having savings bank account with the opposite party under account No.57002235042.  The complainant contended that  he also availed cheque book facility on 29.12.2004 and deposited a sum of Rs.30,000/- in his account and the opposite party also effected the pass book entry and the balance was Rs.31,989/-.   The complainant further contended that he issued cheques bearing No.6053 dated 16.2.2015 for Rs.888/-, and 3.3.2005 cheque No.6054 for Rs.3,000/- and Cheque No.6052 for Rs.3000/- on 8.3.2005 cheque 6055 for Rs.18,000/-, on 18.3.2005 cheque No.6056 for Rs.1800/-.  He is a complainant was a self employed person due to pre occupation he could not go to the bank for effecting increase.

        On 4.7.2005 the complainant despoiled a cheque for Rs.5,000/- for encashment through his friend and on 11.7.2005 he went to the opposite party bank and deposited another sum of Rs.5000/- and enquired about the balance  he was shocked see that a number of withdrawals  had been made on various dates and there amounts were withdrawn as cash without instance of any cheque.    The complainant had not withdrawn any amount since he had not visited the bank.  The opposite party had debited Rs.16,000/- on 11.1.2005/- and Rs.6000/- on 4.3.2005 and Rs.20000/- on 9.5.2005, and Rs.5,000/- on 6.7.2005  in his account.

11.    The complainant further contended that whenever there is a transaction which is not through cheque transaction the account holder has to produce his pass book and he has to fill the withdrawal challan, further a savings bank holder who has the cheque book facility has to have his account transaction only through cheque.  The opposite party bank will not allow the complainant to withdrawn any amount through withdrawal challan the complainant requested the opposite party  to effect credit of Rs.29,000/- into his account.  ON 18.7.2005 the complainant wrote letter to the opposite  party Ex.A2 which was received by the opposite party but ignore it. 

12.    The complainant further contended that the loss of Rs.29,000/- is a big blow the complainant who is a self employed business man.   The opposite party failed to follow the procedure and committed deficiency of service and caused mental agony due to the negligence therefore he issued lawyer notice to the opposite party on 18.8.2005  view Ex.A3 for which the opposite party replied on 14.9.2005 Ex.A9 denying the allegation.  

13.    The opposite party denied all the allegation of the complainant and stated that the complainant was withdrawing money from his account only by  submitting withdrawal slip it could be seen that till 29.12.2004 the complainant was withdrawing money only by presently withdrawal from vide Ex.B1 to Ex.B3.    No doubt that the  balance  in complainant account on 29.12.2004 is Rs.31,989/- is …………… by opposite party.  The counsel for the opposite party submit that they issued a cheque book containing 10 leaves bearing Nos.006051 and 006060 to the complainant  on 3.4.2003.   it could be seen that even when he was having cheque facility the complainant was withdrawing money from his account only by submitting withdrawal slip he was not using the cheque leaves for 21 months and from the date of issue only and he used the 1^st leaf only on 6.1.2005, is the date on which the opposite party was brought under core banking system.   The account number of the complainant was changed from 104085 to 57002235042 vide Ex.B10.  Even since the implementation of core banking system f of the opposite party bank was facing problems in printing pass books and the pass books could not be updated manually.

14.    The counsel for the opposite party further contended that as the complainant is known to the single window operator of the opposite party bank, they made payments to complainant without making entries in pass book, he was permitted to withdraw money by producing withdrawal slip only as a matter of customer service in practical banking, and the complainant was only personally coming to opposite party bank every time , on 6.1.2005 he presented the 1^st opposite party bank of the cheque book and has withdrawn a sum of Rs.500/- vide Ex.B5 statement.    On 11.1.2005 he withdraw a sum of Rs.16,000/- by presenting withdrawal slip.   At the time of withdrawing money the complainant had affixed his signature on the reverse side of the withdrawal slip, but on perusing Ex.B9 no such signature is  found on the reverse side.  Similarly on 4.3.2005 , 9.5.2005, 6.7.2005,14.7.2005 he had presented withdrawal slip and had withdrawn money from his account vide Ex.B9 to Ex.B12.

15.    The opposite party further contended that it is a blatant lie on the part of the complainant that he had not visited the opposite party bank on all the days.  On 3.3.2005 he had came to the bank and withdrawn a sum of  Rs.300/- by presenting cheque leaf bearing No.006052 and  a sum of Rs.3000/- by presenting a cheque bearing No.006054. 

16.    It is seen that the complainant had not disputed the withdrawals made by him on 3.3.2005 by presently cheque.   Therefore the contention of the complainant he had not visited the opposite party bank between 29.12.2004 to 11.7.2005 is false.   Due to  core banking system entries were not made but the bank issued statement of account vive Ex.B5.   After receipt of letter date 18.7.2005 the opposite party bank manger explained the position to him and he was satisfied.  But in order to cheat the opposite party bank he had filed false case.   To the legal notice reply notice dated 14.9.2005 was sent to the complainant in which it was stated the 1^st  leaf of the cheque book bearing No.006051  and the complainant had suppressed al the facts. 

17.    Therefore it is very clear from the statement Ex.B5 that the complainant had withdrawn Rs.500/- on 6.1.2005, hence the contention of the complainant is not acceptable.   On perusing Ex.B9 to Ex.B13 the complainant has withdrawn the disputed  entry amount of Rs.16000/- Rs.6000/- Rs.2000/- and Rs.5000 is established.

18.    Further the contention the opposite party is also not denied by the complainant is his evidence.  Hence this forum is of the considered view that  the opposite party had not committed any deficiency in service.  Considering the facts and circumstances of the case this forum is of the considered view that the  complainant is not entitled for any relief as prayed for in the complaint and the point is answered accordingly. 

            In the result the complaint is dismissed.  No cost

 Dictated by the Member-I to the Assistant, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the Member-I and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the  11^th     day  of  December  2017.

 

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT.

Complainants’ side documents:

 

Ex.A1-                 -  Copy of the Pass books for the Savings Bank account

                              issued  by  the opposite party.

Ex.A2- 18.7.2005  -  Copy of letter by the complainant to the opp. party.

Ex.A3- 18.8.2005  -  Copy of legal notice.

Ex.A4- 14.9.2005  -  Copy of reply notice.

 

Opposite party’s side documents:    

 

Ex.B1- 30.10.2003         -  Copy of withdrawal form

Ex.B2- 11.11.2003         -  Copy of withdrawal form

Ex.B3- 19.3.2004  -  Copy of withdrawal form.

Ex.B4- 3.4.2003    -  Copy of cheque leaf.

Ex.B5- 9.12.1998  -  Copy of Statement of account

Ex.B6-                 -  Copy of Manual Pass Book.

Ex.B7-               -  Copy of computerized Pass Book.

Ex.B8- 11.1.2005 -  Copy of cheque leaf  

Ex.B9- 04.3.2005  -  Copy of cheque leaf

Ex.B10- 9.5.2005  -  Copy of cheque leaf.

Ex.B11- 6.7.2005  -  Copy of cheque leaf.

Ex.B12- 14.7.2005         -  Copy of cheque leaf.

Ex.B13- 3.3.2005  -  Copy of cheque leaf.

Ex.B14- 3.3.2005  - Copy of cheque leaft.

 

 

 

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT.