This C.C. is coming on before us for hearing; in the presence of             Sri. B. Narasimha Reddy, Advocate for opposite parties No.1,2,4 and 5; opposite party No.3 appeared in person; and complainants appeared in person; upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing and having stood over for consideration, this Forum passed the following:-

O R D E R

(Per Sri. P. Madhav Raja, President)

This complaint is filed under section 12(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 

2.      The brief facts mentioned in the complaint are that the complainants have given authorization to appear and represent on behalf of them to one Sri. T. Naraiah, Executive Member of Consumer Welfare Society of Khammam. The complainants are members for Right to information campaign Samachara Chaitanyam for Khammam district. The Right to Information campaign for Samachara Chaitanyam for Khammam District is maintaining an account bearing No.0374104000106221 in opposite partyNo.1 branch and it was being operated by the complainants.  On 15-04-2015 the said account operator names i.e. the complainants were changed and recorded the other names without knowledge of the complainants. On 15-04-2015 Rs.9,000/- through self cheque No.199541,and for Rs.4,500/-  through cheque No.199542 on the name of Y. Rama Krishna and on 14-05-2015 through a cheque No.199545 for Rs.10,000/- on the name of Sd. Yakub Baig totally Rs.23,500/- were drawn and encashed.  On 30-05-2015 the Manager i.e. opposite party No.1 have refused to receive the complaint to this effect. On 06-06-2015 a cheque bearing No.114189 – 507259002 – 037400 – 31 issued by the complainants were returned by the opposite party No.1 with memo stating that the drawers signature incomplete / differ / required and drawer signature authority to operate the account not received at this Branch. The complainants stated that the opposite party No.1removed the account No.037104000106221 operative member names and incorporated the names of Sri. Aepuri Chinna Rama Lingaiah as District President, Yakub Baig as General Secretary and V. Namashivaiah as Treasurer and allow them to operate the said account while issuing a fresh cheque book though blank cheques are available in the old cheque book no.114189 serial, and these office bearers were nominated on the basis of resolution passed in a meeting held on 21-02-2015.  The complainants stated that the shown members in the resolution dt. 21-02-2015 are false and made with fabricated documents. Thumma Hanumantha Rao declaring himself as State President RTI campaign for Samachara Chaitanyam replaced Atukuri Rama Rao and nominated Aepuri Chinna Rama Lingaiah as Khammam District President. The portion of photos and the attended members portion are different paper with the photocopied paper.  The resolution, declaration and abstract dated 21-02-2015 was recorded on District Letter head.  On 04-12-2015 the complainants have brought the same to the notices of the opposite parties No.3 to 5 but no action have taken and no results have come out.  Hence the complainants file this complaint praying to pay Rs.23,500/- @ 12% of interest per annum and  Rs.5,00,000/- as damages from the opposite parties No.1 to 5.         

3.      In support of the complainants’ contention have filed the following documents, which are marked as Exhibits A-1 to A-16.

4.      On receipt of the notice, the opposite parties No.1,2,4 and 5 appeared through their counsel and filed counter and opposite party No.3 filed written version, the opposite parties No.1,2,4 and 5 admitted the maintaining of account No.0374104000106221 in the opposite party No.1 branch. On 21-02-2015 the RTI campaign for Samachara Chaitanyam had submitted resolution, declaration made on 21-02-2015 attested by the Members of Executive Committee as per point No.5.II of the Rules and Regulations of the society and requested the opposite party No.1 to change the authorized signature to operate the account.  The resolution of society authorized Sri. A. Chinna Ramalingaiah, 2. Sri. SK. Yaukb Baig and 3. V. Namashivaiah to operate the account and it was attested by Executive Committee Member Sri. Thumma Hanumantha Rao.  As per point No.5.II  the opposite party No.1 has accepted the same and effected the authorized signatures for the said account and basing on the request of the new authorized signatories the opposite party No.1 has issued new cheque book even though the old cheque book existed which is not against the rules of the opposite party No.1.  The opposite party No.1 always contacts those persons who are authorized on behalf of the society, and the opposite party No.1 verifies the signatures on the cheques with the authorized signatures submitted by the society.  As per certificate of Registration of Registrar of RTI Campaign for Samachara Chaitanyam under No.116/2013, dt. 30-04-2013 was elected Sri. T. Hanumantha Rao as President by the General Body.  As per the rules and regulations and point No.5.II of the society the Members of the Executive Committee (Governing Body) are bound to attest the signatures of the Members of newly elected executive committee, accordingly, Sri. T. Hanumantha Rao, President of RTI campaign for Samachara Chaitanyam has attested the signatures of the elected committee from time to time. on 30-06-2013 the opposite party No.1 has opened account basing on the resolution, which was accepted by the complainants.  On available authorized signatures at the time of presentation of cheques the opposite party No.1 has allowed the cheque payments for Rs.9,000/-, Rs.4,500/- and Rs.10,000/-.  The cheque bearing No114189 was returned as the signatures on the cheque were not tallied with the authorized signatures available for the society on that date.  Due to rivalry between the present body and farmer body and in order to wreak vengeance against each other the complaint has brought into and thereby to tarnish the reputation of the opposite party bank.  The opposite party No.1 has acted as per the rules and regulations of the society point No.5.II.  Thus, the complainants does not have entitled as they prayed.  Hence the complaint may be pleased to be dismissed with exemplary costs.

          The opposite party No.3 has filed written version contending that the RBI in excess of power conferred upon it by Section 35-A the banking Regulation Act 1949 introduced a scheme in the year 1995 which is known as banking ombudsmen scheme 1995.  The opposite party No.3 is the authority appointed under the banking ombudsmen scheme 2006 with an object of enabling resolution of complainants relating to certain identified services rendered by the banks to facilitate the satisfaction or settlement of such complaints.  A complaint was registered as 201516009000094, dt.24-09-2015 on illegal change of name in the account and the same was considered and closed by banking ombudsmen under clause 13(c) of BOS 2006 on 26-10-2015 by recording that vide the bank letter dt.23-07-2015 the society members submitted new resolution and the bank recorded the changes in authorized signatories.  Hence the complaint is closed under clause 13(c) of BOS as it involves detailed investigations of evidence which beyond the purview of BOS 2006. Hence, prayed to dismiss the complaint against the opposite party No.3 with costs.   

5.      In support of contentions the opposite party No.3, filed the following documents which are marked as Exhibits B-1 and B-2.

6.      Written arguments filed by both parties.                                

7.     Upon perusing the material papers available on record, now the point that arose for consideration is,

1. Whether the opposite parties are under deficiency service?

2. To what relief the complainants are entitled for?

Point No.1:-        

          It is an admitted fact that the RTI campaign for Samachara Chaitanyam  Society of Khammam district is having a bank account with the opposite No.1.  On 15-04-2015 through cheque No.199541and 199542 for Rs.9,000/- and Rs.4,500/- and on 14-05-2015 through cheque No.199545 Rs.10,000/- totally Rs.23,500/- were drawn and encashed.  The opposite party No.1 have changed the names of authorized signatories of the said account and were paid the amounts basing on the dt.21-02-2015   resolutions passed by the society as per point No.5.II rules and regulations of the society.  As per exhibit No.A-14 a letter head which reveals that RTI Campaign for Samachara Chaitanyam State Committee assembled on 21-02-2015 at State Office presided by Sri. T. Hanumantha Rao, State President, Khammam District Committee Members are present and passed resolution stating that the existing officials signatures i.e. T. Naraiah, Ch. Ravi Kumar, Sri. G. Amarnath are removed and resolute as President Sri. Aepuri Chinna Ramalingaiah, Secretary as Sri. S.K. Yakub Baig, and as Treasurer Sri. V. Namashivaiah.  The above 3 members or any two members can operate the bank account. The president Sri. Aepuri Chinna Ramalingaih is compulsory.  The Members were presented 1. Sri. A. Chinna Rama Lingaiah, 2. Sk. Yakub Baig, 3. V. Namashivaiah, 4. Jalla Venkateswarlu, 5. P. Prasad, 6. K. Raghunadha Rao, 7. B. Baaji  8. S. Purnahchander Rao, 9. Dr. G.S.R. Anjanayelu, 10. A. Babu Rao, 11. A. Laxman, 12. Shakeena was signed and was attested by Sri. T. Hanumantha Rao, State President, RTI campaign for Samachara Chaitanyam.  The declaration given by the State President T. Hanumantha Rao on 21-02-2015 to the opposite party No.1 reveals that due to some reasons Mr. Atukuri Rama Rao was removed by State Committee in the year 2013 and now Mr. Aepuri China Ramalingaiah nominated as Khammam District President, Sk. Yakub and V. Namashivaiah nominated as General Secretary and Treasurer for RTI Campaign for Samachara Chaitanyam by State Committee. The resolution and abstract of RTI campaign Samachara Chaitanyam on letter head shows the signatures of the members and the newly elected president, secretary, and treasurer photographs and signatures attested by the state president RTI campaign for Samachara Chaitanyam but no where the Executive committee members are not shown. In resolution Sri T.Naraiah name was mentioned along with the complaint No2 and 3 and no where resolved that Atukuri Rama Rao was replaced with the name of Apuri Chinna Rama lingaiah. The point No.5.II of the said society rule that the society members of the executive committee (Governing Body) shall be duly bound to attest the signatures of all the members of newly elected executive committee and see that the said signatures of the outgoing governing body tally with annual list as filed with the registrar of societies before 15 days the succeeding month in which elections were held.  The rule No.2.I shows that Executive committee shall consists of 7 members and out of them the following office bearers shall be elected E.C. viz. President, General Secretary, Joint Secretary, Treasurer and the remaining persons all the Executive Committee members.  The resolution dt.21-02-2015 i.e. Exhibit No.A-14 shows that it is a letter head and State President Sri. T. Hanumantha Rao has signed and gave a declaration that Atukuri Rama Rao with other two complainants removed and was replaced with new authorized signatories. The members shown in the society rules and regulations are different with that of shown and signed in 21-02-2015 abstract. The opposite parties have failed to explain it hence an adverse inference has drawn in favour of the complainants. The opposite party No.1 has not gone through the resolution properly with at most care. The RTI campaign Samachara Chaithanyam is a registered society governed with rules and regulations. The opposite party without following and ignoring the  rules removed the authorized operating members of the said account for operation. The one T.Naraiah name who is nowhere concerned with the said account was resolved to replace on letter head and the Opposite party No.1 acted accordingly. The opposite party No 1,2, 4 &5 are failed to substantiate their pleading, hence we are in opinion that the Opposite parties are not executed their services properly and are in deficiency of service.     

         The opposite party No.3 is the authority appointed under the banking ombudsmen scheme 2006 with an object of enabling resolution of complainants relating to certain identified services rendered by the banks to facilitate the satisfaction or settlement of such complaints.  It is framed by the RBI in excess of power conferred upon it by Section 35-A the banking Regulation Act 1949 introduced a scheme in the year 1995 which is known as banking ombudsmen scheme 1995. Complaint was registered as 201516009000094, dt.24-09-2015 on illegal change of name in the account. The complaint was considered and closed by banking ombudsmen under clause 13(c) of BOS 2006 on 26-10-2015 by recording that  vide letter dt.23-07-2015 the society members submitted new resolution and the bank recorded the changes in authorized signatories. Hence the complaint is closed under clause 13(c) of BOS as it involves detailed investigations of evidence which beyond the purview of BOS 2006. Here we don’t find any sort of deficiency of service against the Opposite party No.3,  being an authority it has availed its statutory function and not amounts as deficiency service. The point is answered holding liable the opposite parties No.1,2,4 and 5 for deficiency of service while  discharging the Opposite party No.3accordingly.

Point No.2:-

The Opposite parties No.1,2,4 and 5 are under deficiency of service as opposite party No.1 has  failed to follow the rules of the said society due to which the complaints have sustained  financial loss  to the tune of Rs 23,500/- and reputation in respect of dishonoring of a cheque. Therefore the Opposite parties 1,2,4 and 5 are liable to pay the loss and for the mental agony of the complaints, hence the point is answered against the Opposite parties 1,2,4, and 5.

8. .      In the result the complaint is allowed in part, directing the opposite parties No.1,2,4 and 5 to pay Rs 23,500/- jointly and severally to the complainants together with interest @9% p.a. from the date of filing the complaint. Further directed to pay Rs.1000/- towards costs within a month and recover the paid amount from the concerned bank employee working at the time of replacing the said authorised account members with the Opposite party No.1. The complaint against the opposite party No.3 is dismissed.

          Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum, on this the 9^th day of November, 2017.

Member                   Member               President

                                                          District Consumer Forum,

Khammam.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED:-

For Complainant                                                    For Opposite party  

       None                                                                          None

DOCUMENTS MARKED:-

For Complainant                                                    For Opposite party

Member                    Member              President

                                                          District Consumer Forum,

 Khammam.