KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANATHPURAM

APPEAL.No. 149/09

JUDGMENT DATED : 05.02.2010

PRESENT:-

JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU              :          PRESIDENT

SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA                                     :          MEMBER

P.Sankarankutty  Nair                                          :          APPELLANT

Madatipathi, Nagath Sreekalee,

Bhuvaneswari Durga,

Vishnumaya Mahakshethram,

Thalavanaikkara, Thalore.P.O.,

Thrissur.

Vs

1.     The Branch Manager,

     State Bank of Travancore,                  :     RESPONDENTS

     Thalore.

2.     The General Manager,                    

      Head Ofice, SBT,

      Poojappura, Thiruvananthapuram.

(By Adv.Sri.M.Nizamudeen)

JUDGMENT

SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA           :          MEMBER

          This appeal prefers from this order passed by the CDRF, Thrissur in the file of C.C.No.578/06 dated 30.01.2009.  The appellant is the complainant who prefers this appeal from the above impugned order passed by the Forum below.  In short, the complainant is a bank account holder of the opposite parties bank and account number is 57031169550.  He deposited Rs.300/- in the bank on 11.11.05.  On 11.11.06 it was seen that Rs.104/- was credited to his account and also Rs.4/- on 31.05.06.  He deposited an amount of Rs.500/- on 06.09.2006.  The total amount to be found was Rs.908/- but this amount as shown as Rs.500/-.  An amount of Rs.408 was debited by the opposite parties bank.  On 12.12.05the Manager of the bank intimated that the minimum cash balance is Rs.250/- in his account.  The account book has no cheque book facility.  So the respondent bank is bound to credit the amount of Rs.408/- to his account.  The complainants send an application to the Manager T.P.Rajagopalan in the form of the complaint and it seems that,   the     Manager was not satisfactory.  Hence this complaint.

          2.          The opposite parties appeared and filed their version.  They contended that a circular No.43/05 dated 25.05.2005 prescribing the Savings Bank Rules for maintaining the Savings Bank Account the account holder without cheque book has to maintain a minimum balance of Rs.250/- failing which he has to pay penal charges @ Rs.55/- per quarter during the quarter ending 30.09.05.  The complainant had only Rs.49/- in his account.  Since the balance was only Rs.49/- it was debited to his account.  The complainant then filed a petition to the Banking Ombudsman stating that he has no knowledge about keeping minimum balance.  As per the direction of Ombudsman the respondent bank remitted Rs.49/- and Rs.104/-towards his account.    The copy of the order from the Ombudsman was forwarded to the complainant where in it was clearly stated that the complainant has to keep minimum balance in future.  Later the opposite party bank issued a circular instructions enhancing the minimum balance to Rs.500/- for accounts without cheque book facility.  The bank had sent a letter informing their willingness to reimburse Rs.408/- and the complainant has not responded.  The complainant is legally bound to keep the minimum balance in account failing which penal interest has to be paid. 

3.            The Forum below raised two points for the consideration.  They are:

1.     Is the complainant is entitled to get Rs.408/- as claimed?

2.     Other reliefs and costs?

4.    In the evidence there were 8 documents produced by the complainant and this marked as Exts.P1 to P8 and there were 5 documents produced by the opposite party and these are marked as R1 to R2 respectively.

5.          The Forum below rightly answered all the points arised for the consideration and found that an order passed by the Forum in favour of the complainant only because he was not aware of the part and the amount was credited by the respondent bank.  In this case the complaint is seeking Rs.408/- to be credited.  As per the order of Ombudsman the bank has already credited to Rs.104/- plus Rs.4/- to his account.  The complainant has no case that he had deposited Rs.104/- and Rs.4/- . He has stated that those amounts are seen in the account on those dates.  Definitely it was credited by the bank to his account.  As per Ext.P1 pass book the balance amount is shown Rs.500/-  but there is no withdrawal from the part of the complainant.  In this circumstance the complainant is rightly entitled for the amount Rs.408/-since there is no appeal against the order of the ombudsman.  So at present balance amount is Rs.908 and no necessity for directing the respondent to credit the amount again.  In the counter the respondents stated their willingness to reimburse Rs.408/- and they further stated that complainant has not responded. But there is no supporting evidence for this contention.  Anyway the account balance at present is seen Rs.908/- and no further direction is seen necessary.  The complainant is duty bound to keep the minimum balance in his account and if not the respondent bank has every right to close his account.  In the result, the complaint is dismissed and no order as to cost.  The appellant in person file this appeal from the above impugned order passed by the Forum below.

     6.       On this day this appeal came before this commission for final hearing the appellant is in person and the counsel for the respondent/opposite parties are present.  The appellant vehemently argued on the grounds of the appeal memorandum that the order passed by the Forum below is not accordance as per the provisions of the law and evidence and it is not legally sustainable.  He submitted that he filed the complaint against the respondent in deficiency of service at the time of filing the complaint Rs.408 was not paid by the opposite party in his account.  It was paid only after the order of the banking ombudsman, Thiruvananthapurm.  In other words Rs.408/- was debited by the bank in his account as per the direction of the banking ombudsman.  Non debit of an amount of Rs.408/- is nothing but a deficiency in service from the part of the respondent bank.  He filed this complaint before the Forum below for such a grievance.  The counsel for the opposite party vehemently argued that this amount was disbursed by the bank in his account.  The grievances of the party is over even before passed the order by the Forum below.  There is no necessary to allow the appeal.  The counsel for the respondent bank submitted that the attempt of the consumer /appellant is nothing but harassment the responsible officers of the appellant bank.  There is no meaning to file this appeal.  It is  vexatious and frivolous. There is no necessary to interfere in the impugned order passed by the Forum below and it is according to the provisions of law and evidence.  It is legally sustainable.

     7.     This commission is seening that there is no appeal filed by the respondent bank from the above impugned order passed by the Forum below.  In the account of the appellant the amount was remitted only after filing the complaint both before the Forum below and before the banking ombudsman.  It shows that the respondent bank committed latches their part to disburse Rs.408/- in the account of the appellant/complainant.  If the appellant did not file the complaint in the forum below the respondent bank will keep mum.  The appellant/complainant who prefers this amount from the respondent only because he filed the complaint before the CDRF and banking ombudsman. What is the reason to non remittance of Rs.408 in the account of the appellant/ complainant?  There is no answer in this point submitted by the respondent bank both in the Forum below and before this commission.  So this act of the respondent bank is nothing but a deficiency in service from the part of the respondent/opposite parties.  The complainant/appellant is prayed for compensation and cost for deficiency of service.  He submitted that this prayers did not considered by the Forum below.  It is the reason for he approached this Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission with his appeal. He further submitted that the respondent bank who failed to furnish an information (copy of the circular) to him on his application under Sec.6 of the Right to Information Act.  He submitted that the bank given a reply that there was no such circular issued by them. He submitted the opposite parties produced it before the Forum later.  But in this case this is not a subject matter.  He submitted that such documents with in the records of the Forum below.  But this is not a Forum to deal with this complaint. We concerned this special matter deal with the Chief Information Commissioner and have the liberty to approach to him. This is not an appropriate Forum to entertain to this matter in the absence of any such allegation both in the complaint and the appeal.  If he desires he can approach the Forum below with a fresh complaint.  The apex commission (National Commission) in a case Dr.S.P.Thirumalarao Vs.Mysore City Corporation settled this position (RP No.1975/2 dated 28.05.09).  The National Commission taken a strong view in this Revision Petition that the CDRF have no bar to take to admit and award compensation for deficiency of service committed by the public Information Officers who designated as per The Right to Information Act.  The Right To Information Act provides any penalty under Sec.9 of the Act on the competent authority, yet Act does not provide in any remedy to the Consumer who have sought information under said act for deficiency of service in the nature of compensation or damages for not furnishing the information sought to which they are entitled to get under the said Act.  The Sec.3 of the Consumer Protection Act provides additional remedy in addition to the remedy provide under other Acts and it is not in a derogation of any provisions of any law.  The Consumer Fora has, therefore, jurisdiction to entertain the complaint in respect of deficiency of service in the given facts especially when Information sought was not furnished.  The appellant/ complainant is having any such allegation he have the liberty to approach the Forum below with a fresh complaint for the above grievances. In other words, The Public Information Officer (under RT Act) is liable both in C.P.Act and in RT Act. This commission is seening that the order passed by the Forum below is legally sustainable except awarding compensation and cost.  This Commission decide to modify the result portion of the above impugned order passed by the Forum below.  The appellant came to this Commission on so many times in person.

In the result this appeal is allowed in part and direct the respondent/opposite party to pay 12% interest per annum for an amount of Rs.408/- up to the date of 16.02.208 from the date of the complaint with a reasonable compensation of Rs.500/-.  The respondent/opposite party bank submitted that they have right to collect penal interest for the non maintenance of the prescribed amount in the Savings Bank Account of the complainants.  Some way they are liable to pay the above interest in their non remittance of the amount of Rs.408/- in the account of the complainant. Law of land is applicable to whole. Nobody have the liberty to pick and choose and interpret the provisions of the law as per their own will of pleasure.  All are equal before the law.  The above appeal is disposed with above modifications. The points of the appeal answered accordingly.

M.K.ABDULLA SONA                                        :          MEMBER

JUSTICE K.R.UDAYABHANU             :          PRESIDENT

Kb.