BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION (under Consumer Protection Act, 1986) OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

FA NO.121 OF 2018 AGAINST CC NO.138 OF 2017

ON THE FILE OF DISTRICT FORUM-III, HYDERABAD

Between:

Dashrath Ramesh Kumar Chawan,

S/o Dasharath Rao, aged 50 years,

Chetan Chawan (minor) S/o D.Ramesh Kumar,

R/o H.No.5-2-675, Risala Abdullah,

New Osmangunj, Hyderabad.

…Appellant/Complainant

And

Syndicate Bank Manager,

Nizam Shahi Road branch,

Mozam Jahi Market Road,

Opp: Karachi Bakery,

Hyderabad – 500 001.

…Respondent/Opposite party

Counsel for the Appellant        :         Party-in-person

Counsel for the Respondents   :         Served with notice

CORAM :

Hon’ble Sri Justice MSK Jaiswal   …      President

Thursday, the Twenty Seventh day of September

Two thousand Eighteen

Oral Order :

***

          The unsuccessful Complainant in CC No.138 of 2017 on the file of District Consumer Forum-III, Hyderabad preferred this appeal feeling aggrieved by the orders of dismissal dated 21.02.2018.

2)       For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the complaint.

3)       The case of the Complainant, in brief, is that Complainant stated to have opened a savings bank account with the Opposite party on the name of his minor son who was born on 05.12.1995 for the purpose of his education, however, he lost the passbook during Dasara festival while cleaning the home and he does not even remember the account number.  The account was opened jointly on the name of his son and himself.  Though he does not specify the date of opening the account, he states that he furnished his residential address in the application.  He opened the account by depositing Rs.500/- and the present balance would be nearly Rs.5,000/-.  Hence, prayed to direct the bank to refund his amount with interest.

4)       Opposite party resisted the claim by way of filing written version contending that the Complainant maintained SB account bearing No.30002010013691 with the bank and it is not a joint account.  The son of complainant by name Chetan Chavan opened term deposit account bearing No.3004050005210 separately.  Complainant sought closure of savings bank account on 25.10.2008 and they paid the proceeds of Rs.1000.05 paise to the complainant.  The complainant’s son also closed the term deposit and received the entire proceeds on 21.01.2005.  Therefore, as per their records, both the accounts have been closed.

5)       Despite furnishing the information, the Complainant had been visiting their branch and asking about deposit account.  Moreover, the complaint is barred by limitation as provided under Section-24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 since the same is filed after two years from the date of cause of action.  Hence, prayed to dismiss the complaint.

6)       During the course of enquiry before the District Forum, in order to prove their case, the Complainant filed his evidence affidavit and the documents Ex.A1 and A2; on behalf of the Opposite party, got filed the affidavit evidence of one K.Laxmi Rajan and the documents Ex.B1 and B2.

7)       The District Forum after considering the material available on record, dismissed the complaint bearing CC No.138/2017 by orders dated 21.02.2018. 

8)       Aggrieved by the above orders, the Appellant/Complainant preferred this appeal contending that the forum below failed to appreciate the evidence on record as also the pleadings thereof.  Hence, prayed to set aside the orders of the forum below.

9)       The point that arises for consideration is whether the impugned orders as passed by the District Forum are liable to be set aside, if so, to what relief ?

10)     The dispute involved in the case is that the Respondent bank failed to repay the proceeds lying to the account of Appellant’s minor son and this claim is made without referring to any account number alleging it to be a joint account.  In a case of this nature, the burden lies on the Appellant to prove that he had opened the account with the bank and that upon his request to pay the proceeds, the Respondent bank failed to act upon the same.  Surprisingly, the Appellant failed to furnish the account number and he does not remember the date of opening the account, but simply avers that he had furnished the same address as that of his own account. 

11)     As against the above claim of Appellant, the Respondent bank would contend that they had already paid the entire proceeds insofar as account of the Appellant is concerned as also the term deposit proceeds of his minor son, to which, there is no dispute.  However, the Appellant would contend that he is entitled to receive further sums, but, to vouchsafe the same, no piece of paper is brought on record.  Admittedly, the Appellant is not a layman, instead an educated person working as Teacher and financial consultant.  No proof is placed on record to support his case nor there any denial of the statements of account filed by the Respondent.  No deficiency of service or negligence is proved against the bank.  The appellant had failed to file any piece of paper evidencing the opening of joint account on the name of his minor son and depositing the money.  The forum below after considering the material placed on record gave its finding rendering dismissal of the complaint.  Even in this appeal too, the Appellant could not place any record in support of his claim.  The Appellant cannot lay hands without establishing his claim.  The appellant failed to discharge his burden.  We do not see any infirmities or irregularities in the orders passed by the forum below, hence, we are of the opinion that the orders of forum below do not warrant any interference and there are no merits in the appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed.  We answer this point accordingly against the Appellant and in favour of the Respondent.

12)     In the result, the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed but in the circumstances, the parties to bear their own costs.

PRESIDENT

Dated 27.09.2018