BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : HYDERABAD

 F.A.No.72/2013 against  C.C.No.278/2012, Dist. Forum-II, Visakhapatnam.

Between:

1.London Mission (CSI) Church, Christian Street,

   Chittivalasa, represented by its Presbyter-in-Charge

   Cum  President Sri G.Vishwanad, S/o. Late Ramulu,

   Aged  50 years, D.No.4-59/237/2,Opp. Jute Mills,

   Chittivalasa, Bhimunipatnam Mandal, Visakhapatnam.

2. Mr.K.William Carey, S/o.K.A.Ratnayya,

   aged 48 years, Treasurer, 

   LM (CSI) Church, Christian Street,

   Chittivalasa , Bhimunipatnam Mandal,

   Visakhapatnam.

3.Mr.K.Robert Jayaraj,S/o.Late Mr.K.George,

   Aged 75 years, Secretary, LMM Church,

   Main Road,

   Visakhapatnam.                                                    ….Appellants/

                                                                                   Complainants

               And

 The Branch Manager, State Bank of India,

 Chittivalasa Branch, Bhimunipatnam,

 Visakhapatnam.                                                         …Respondent/

                                                                                    Opp.party

Counsel for the Appellants       :     M/s. S.Nagesh Reddy    

Counsel for the Respondent     :     M/s. Vamaraju Srikrishnudu.       

QUORUM: SRI T.ASHOK KUMAR, HON’BLE MEMBER

AND

SRI S.BHUJANGA  RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER

FRIDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF MAY,

        TWO THOUSAND  FOURTEEN.

Oral Order: (Per  Sri S.Bhujanga Rao, Hon’ble Member)           

                                                                      ***

   The unsuccessful complainants  filed this appeal  against  the order dt.12.10.2012 of the Dist. Forum-II, Visakhapatnam made in C.C.No.278/2012  filed by them,   to allow them to transfer  an amount of Rs.50,000/- covered under the cheque bearing no.314763 dt. 29.03.2012  issued in favour of  L.M. (CSI) Church, Chittivalasa Branch  to its SBH Branch  by clearing the same and  to direct the opp.party bank to allow the complainants to proceed with  the transactions as usual of their account bearing no.11365962279  in the name of LM (CSI) Church and also  Term Deposit Receipt (TDR)   with account no.01201005020 and  to pay an amount of Rs.1 lakh towards compensation and Rs.25,000/- towards costs  to the complainant. 

         The case of the complainants  as per the complaint  is that  the LM (CSI) Church (complainant no.1)  is having  an SB account bearing account no.11365962279   with opposite party bank. The Church also has  a Term Deposit Receipt (TDR) with account no.01201005020  for an amount of Rs.2  lakhs with the opp.party bank, on which periodical interest has to be credited to the above  Church  S.B.Account every month.                 

         The  complainants 2 and 3  are the present  co-signatories  of the said account , as per the orders of  the Bishop.    Previously, an adhoc committee was appointed on 03.03.2007 to work for a period of one year w.e.f. 01.04.2007  and as such there is no executive committee from 01.04.2008, the  Bishop appointed an adhoc committee on 28.9.2009 w.e.f. 01.10.2009, for the smooth running and  administration of the Church, under the local chairmanship of the presbyter-in-charge, Rev. G.Viswanath as President and complainant no.2 Sri K.William  Carey as Treasurer and the entire Church is now being    run under the administration of the above new committee without any disturbance or obstruction.  

        It is further stated in the complaint that  the new Committee assumed the charge as per  the orders of the Bishop  and approached the opp.party bank and submitted a  representation on 16.10.2009 to allow  the 2^nd and 3^rd complainants to be as co-signatories of the account  and to operate the same, for which,  the opp.party  bank objected   and insisted for some more documents and the complainant submitted all the required documents time and again, as directed by them and made number of representations since it is not an individual account and some how, the opp.party bank allowed the new committee, to withdraw an amount of Rs.500/-  on 19.11.2009  by accepting the 2^nd and 3^rd complainants  as new signatories. Subsequently,  when the complainants tried to operate the account, opposite party bank  again disallowed the complainants  to operate the same  with some other story and addressed a letter on 25.10.2010 to the complainants to fulfil some more new requirements and that till such time, the account cannot be operated.     As per the instructions of the opp.party bank, the complainants again fulfilled all the requirements and submitted all the documents.  Surprisingly,  the opp.party bank disallowed the complainants to operate the account, without assigning any valid reasons.

         The further case of the complainants is that  at that juncture, the complainants constrained to lodge a complaint with the Banking Ombudsman  and   on coming to know about the same, the opposite party bank immediately approached the complainants and requested them to submit an indemnity bond and assured that they would allow the complainants to proceed with the transactions  and also requested them to withdraw the complaint with the Ombudsman. The complainants responded positively to the request of the opposite party bank to have cordial relations with them and submitted an indemnity bond on 08.12.2011.   However, after prolonged deliberations, negotiations, correspondences and under the guise of   the interference of the  Banking  Ombudsman  and basing on the indemnity bond submitted by the complainants, the opposite party bank was convinced and accordingly allowed the complainants  to operate with the said account by clearing   two cheques issued by the complainants 2 and 3 in favour of Mr.G.Viswanath, the complainant no.1 herein. The  opp.party  bank also allowed the complainants to deposit an amount of Rs.1000/- on 17.03.2012 in the said account.  Subsequently,  without assigning any reasons, the opposite party bank  disallowed the clearance of the cheque dt.29.03.2012 for an amount of Rs.50,000/- issued by  complainants 2 and 3 in favour of opposite party no.1 church and simply addressed a letter on 10.04.2012 to the complainant no.2 stating that  as there are disputes in the Church, they are going to maintain status-quo of  the nomenclature  of the account, which is arbitrary and illegal. 

          The complainants further stated that  the account may be kept in abeyance or detained if there are any orders or directions from any Court or authority, but without any such orders or directions, the opposite party bank high handedly and illegally detained the amounts of the Church without any valid reason is nothing, but negligence and deficiency in service  on their part. Hence the complaint. 

        The opposite party filed counter/written version  denying the material allegations made in the complaint   and they  contended that   the complainants did not add Sri S.Krupa Rao  and Ch.Suhasini, who were the earlier Treasurer and Secretary  as parties to the present complaint, hence the complaint is  liable for dismissal for non joinder of proper and necessary parties.

         The opposite party further contended that  it received a letter dt.23.11.2009  from S.Krupa Rao (Treasurer ) and Ch.Suhasini(Secretary) on the letter head of  London Mission (C.S.I.) Church  claiming themselves that they are the authorised persons to operate the account of the Church and they questioned the authority of the complainants to operate the accounts of the Church maintained  with the opp.party bank.   The opp.party bank  vide its  letter dt.25.10.2010 advised the complainants that since the Church has to decide the names of two undisputedly elected executives of the Church  to operate the accounts,  until such time, the operation of the accounts will be ceased.    Since there are disputes,  among the office bearers of the Church, the opposite party bank with a view to safeguard the public funds, stopped the operation of the account, till the disputes are resolved among the office bearers and members of the Church and requested the complainants to resolve their disputes among themselves and come with a mandate from proper authority of the Church, but the complainants failed to submit the same and on the contrary, they are  making false allegations against the opp.party bank. There was no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the bank. 

 The opp.party further contended that   the relief in para V (a)  of the complaint  cannot be granted since the alleged cheque became invalid as per the Reserve Bank guidelines and with regard to other reliefs, the same cannot be granted for the reasons stated above.  The complaint is therefore liable to be dismissed with costs. 

         During the course of enquiry, both parties filed their evidence affidavits and got marked Exs.A1 to A6 and B1 in support of their respective contentions.

        Upon hearing the counsel for both the parties and on consideration of the material on record, the District Forum  dismissed the complaint directing the complainants to approach competent court of law to establish their rights in the Church and operation of the account, in view of the third party claims for the same.          

        Aggrieved by the said order, the complainants preferred this appeal,  questioning the legality and validity of the order of the District Forum.

Along with the appeal, the appellants/complainants  filed   petition in I.A.No.730/2014  to receive  the following documents as additional evidence:    

1. Lr.Dt.16.10.2009  addressed by the appellant no.1 to the respondent.
2. Lr.dt.24.10.2009  addressed by the appellant no.1 to the respondent.
3. Letter of indemnity dt.7.12.2011 given by the  appellants  to the  respondent.
4. Lr.Dt.28.05.2012 of Banking Ombudsman  to appellants.
5. Statement of account pertaining to the appellants  maintained by the respondent bank.  

 After hearing both sides, the petition was allowed and the documents were received as additional evidence and  marked as Exs.A7 to A11 subject to proof and relevancy.

We heard the counsel for both the parties and perused the entire material placed on record.

        Now the point for consideration is whether the impugned order of the District  Forum is vitiated for misappreciation of fact or law?

        It is an admitted fact  that  the LM (CSI) Church (Complainant no.1) is having an S.B. Account bearing account no.11365962279  and  Term Deposit Receipt  with  account no.01201005020  for four years  from 19.6.2007 to 19.06.2011 for Rs.2 lakhs, with the opp.party bank.

 It is also  an admitted  fact that  the  Bishop Church of South India Krishna–Godavari Diocese appointed  adhoc committee on 03.03.2007 to administer  the affairs of the complainant no.1 church for its smooth functioning, for a period of one year from 01.04.2007 , the adhoc committee consists  of  the  following members:

1. Chilla Suhasini – Secretary
2. Mr.S.Krupa Rao –Treasurer   
3. Mrs.  Tulari  Krupa Laxmi Bai –Member
4.  Mr.Sunkara Asirwadam–Member
5.  Gutta Daniel – Member

The newly appointed treasurer Mr.S.Krupa Rao with the Secretary of LMM Church, Visakhapatnam  as co-signatory,  was  authorised  by Bishop to operate the account in the place of Mr.S.Albert   and Mr.B.Samuel.

         It is the case of the complainants that  after expiry of the tenure    of the above mentioned  adhoc committee, the Bishop   appointed  an adhoc committee on 28.09.2009  w.e.f.   1.10.2009   for the smooth running  and administration of the Church and the complainant no.2 Sri K.William   Carey is the Treasurer  of the new Committee.    The new Committee assumed charge as per the orders of the Bishop  and approached the opp.party bank  and submitted  a representation on 16.10.2009  to allow the complainant no.2  and the complainant no.3 to be  as co-signatories of the account  and operate the same  and submitted  required documents, as advised  by the bank.   The opposite party bank allowed the new  Committee to withdraw an amount of Rs.500/- on 19.11.2009,  by accepting  the complainants 2 and 3  as new signatories. Subsequently,   when the complainants tried to operate the account, opposite party bank  again disallowed the complainants to operate the same, stating that   one  S.Krupa Rao, the Ex-Treasurer of the Church  gave a letter  dt.23.11.2009  questioning the bank as to why the bank allowed   some third parties to operate the account  and asked the complainants to submit  some more documents and the complainants  fulfilled the requirements  by submitting all the documents.  Surprisingly, the opposite party  bank disallowed the complainants to operate the account, without assigning any valid reason.   Then   the complainants   lodged a complaint with the Bank Ombudsman  against the opp.party bank  and on coming to know about the same,  the opp.party bank  approached the complainants   and requested them to submit  an indemnity bond to allow them to operate the account and requested them to withdraw the complaint.      The complainants  submitted an indemnity bond  on 08.12.2011 as requested by opp.party bank. Thereafter, the opposite party bank allowed the complainants to proceed with the transaction in the said account by clearing cheques bearing nos.314761  and 314762  issued by the complainants 1  and 2 on 27.02.2012  and 16.03.2012  for Rs.5000/-  and Rs.20,000/- respectively, in favour of the complainant no.1.  The opposite party  bank also allowed the complainants to deposit an amount of Rs.1000/- on 17.03.2012 in the said account.    On 29.03.2012, the complainants 2 and 3   issued another  cheque bearing no.314763 for an amount of Rs.50,000/- in favour of the complainant no.1 and presented the same to opposite party bank for encashment, without assigning any reasons, the opposite party  bank disallowed the clearance of the  transaction  and simply addressed a  letter on 10.04.2012 to the 2^ndcomplainant stating “as there are disputes in the  Church , they are going to maintain status-quo of the nomenclature  of the account.” Thereafter, after issuing legal notice, the complainants approached the District Forum   seeking some reliefs,  among which, the main relief is  to direct the opp.party bank to allow them  to proceed with the transactions as usual. 

         As could be seen from the written version,  filed by the opp.party,  the opposite party admitted  almost entire  above mentioned case of the               complainants.  When  the opp.party  bank    prevented  the  complainants  the new governing body of the Church,  from operating  the said account, on the ground that  one S.Krupa Rao, the ex-treasurer  of the complainant no.1 Church  gave Ex. B1  complaint dt.23.11.2009.  In our considered view,  the dispute  in this case is   with regard to the operation of the account of the complainant no.1 Church  by   the authorised signatories  i.e. the complainants 2 and 3 herein.   The dispute is not with regard to the  election and selection of the persons  representing the Church.   If anybody raises any dispute  over the election and selection of the representatives, he has to agitate such objections before competent authority.   In the present case, no such issue was raised  before any authority or the Bishop,  who is the supreme person to take decision,  in cases  pertaining to   complainant no.1  Church.      Under these circumstances,  even if the earlier  members of the adhoc committee are impleaded in the complaint,  the District Forum  will not be competent to adjudicate upon  the dispute in between the office bearers  of the present Committee and the   previous Committee. Therefore,  the complaint   in this case, cannot be  dismissed for  non-joinder  of necessary party.  However, the District Forum is competent to decide  whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party bank in this case.  

         The  opp.party bank  ought not  to have  prevented the complainants to operate the account of the Church,   basing on Ex.B1 letter received  from   S.Krupa Rao, the ex-treasurer, especially when no dispute has been raised  by anyone before the competent authority questioning  the constitution of  the adhoc Committee by the Bishop.  The  opp.party bank was   provided proper resolution and other documents authorising  the newly elected governing body members  to  operate the account  by the complainants.   The earlier adhoc body, in which Mr.S.Krupa Rao was the  Treasurer,  was appointed for one year, w.e.f. 01.04.2007  upto 31.03.2008. Thereafter, the said Committee is ceased to exist.   Thereafter, the Bishop appointed a new adhoc committee on 28.09.2009 w.e.f. 01.10.2009.   Under these circumstances, the bank is not justified   to stop  the operation of the account   until the  dispute is settled, when there is no dispute at all   pending before any authority.

         Admittedly,  the opposite party bank had agreed  and accepted to allow the complainants to operate the account before Banking Ombudsman, who had conducted an enquiry, pursuant to the complaint lodged by the complainant,      subject to furnishing of an indemnity   bond by the complainants, which was also complied with by the complainants.  Based on the assurance and acceptance of the opp.party bank  to allow the complainants to operate the account, the complaint of the appellants was closed by the Banking Ombudsman vide their letter dt.28.05.2012 written to the complainant no.1 vide Ex.A10. Accordingly, the  opp.party bank  had allowed   few transactions to carry out by the complainants as is evident from Ex.A11 statement of account.     The opposite party bank, having allowed the complainants to operate the account  and allowed them to transact  a  few transactions, subsequent to its agreement and assurance before the Banking Ombudsman, ought not to have  stopped the operation of the account  and honouring of the cheque, simply  basing on Ex.B1 letter,   when there is no injunction or direction  from any competent authorities to stop the operation of the account.    It is significant to note that even after receiving Ex.B1 letter, the opposite party bank had allowed transactions in the said account by the new governing body. The opposite party bank cannot act as per their whims and fancies in allowing the operation,  in the account of the complainants. 

         For all the aforesaid facts and circumstances,  we are of the firm view  that there is deficiency in service  on the part of the opp.aprties. Due to  the acts  of opp.parties, the complainants  must have subjected to  mental agony   and harassment. Therefore,  the complainants  are also entitled for reasonable compensation.

 The first relief  sought for  by the complainants in the complaint  cannot be granted  as the cheque became invalid as per Reserve Bank Guidelines, as contended by  the opp.party bank. 

In the result,     the appeal is allowed . The impugned order of the District Forum is set aside.   The complaint in C.C.No.278/2012 is allowed in part , directing the respondent/opp.party bank   to allow the complainants to proceed with the transactions  as usual of their account bearing no.11365962279  in the name of  LM(CSI) Church and also Term Deposit Receipt (TDR) with account no.01201005020.   The respondent/opp.party is further directed to pay  a sum of Rs. 25,000/- towards compensation  and Rs.10,000/- towards  costs through out, in the complaint and this appeal, to the complainant.     The complaint regarding other reliefs  is dismissed. 

                                                                            MEMBER

                                                                            MEMBER

Pm*                                                                      Dt. 23.05.2014

Additional evidence filed by the  appellants/

complainants before this Commission:      

Ex.A7:Lr.Dt.16.10.2009  addressed by the appellant no.1 to the respondent.

Ex.A8:Lr.dt.24.10.2009  addressed by the appellant no.1 to the respondent.

Ex.A9:Letter of indemnity dt.7.12.2011 given by the  appellants  to the  respondent.

Ex.A10:Lr.Dt.28.05.2012 of Banking Ombudsman  to appellants.

Ex.A11:Statement of account pertaining to the appellants  maintained by the respondent bank.  

                                                                         MEMBER

                                                                        MEMBER

Pm*                                                                   Dt. 23.05.2014