Before the District Forum:Kurnool
Present: Sri K.V.H.Prasad, B.A., LL.B., President
And
Smt C.Preethi, M.A., LL.B., Member
Sri R.Ramachandra Reddy, B.Com., LL.B., Member
Wednesday the 8th day of June, 2005
C.D.No.94/2004
Khazi Mohammad Anwarul Haq,
S/o. Abdul Hakeem,
R/o. 26-147,
Kalva Bugga (V), Orvakal (M),
Chittari Street,
Kurnool. . . . Complainant represented by his counsel
Sri G.Chalapathi Rao.
-Vs-
The Branch Manager,
State Bank of India,
Old Town Branch,
Kurnool. . . . Opposite party represented by his counsel
Sri D.A Anees Ahamed.
O R D E R
1. This C.D case of the complainant is filed under Sec.12 of the C.P. Act seeking direction on the opposite party to pay him D.D amount of Rs.31,000/-with interest at 24% per annum from 12.3.2004 till realization, Rs.30,000/- as damages from mental pain and suffering and Rs.5,000/- as costs alleging deficiency of service of the opposite party in collection and crediting the D.D.No.10344 dt.17.2.2004 for U.S. dollars 680(=Rs.31,000/-) to the complainants N.R.I. Account No.011920 11257.
2. The brief facts of the complainants case are that the D.D.No.103 44 dt.17.2.2004 issued by Commercial Bank of Eritrea, Asmara – a North East African Country for U.S dollars 680 on the name of the complainant was deposited, with the opposite party’s bank on 12.3.2004 under an acknowledgement counter foil, through the complainant’s wife, for its collection and crediting in the complainant’s N.R.I account. Inspite of repeated approaches, reminder writer representations dt.21.7.2004 and 19.8.2004 and several telephone intimations worth Rs.2,000/- the opposite party did not raise to the needful except giving some evasive replies and the said deficient service ensued mental agony depriving the complainant the entitled amount under the said D.D.for considerable period.
3. In pursuance of the receipt of the notice of this Forum as to this case of the complainant the opposite party caused its appearance through its counsel and contested the case filing written version denying any of its liability to the claim of the complainant, pleading every deligent effort on its side in transmission of the said D.D to the concerned through its Main Branch.
4. In substantiation of the contentions while the complainant’s side relied upon the documentary record in Ex.A.1 to A.4 and its sworn-affidavit, the opposite party’s side has relied upon the documentary records in Ex.B.1 to B.9 and its self sworn-affidavit in re-iteration of its defense.
5. Hence, the point for consideration is whether the alleged deficiency of service was made out by the complainant against the opposite party holding the liability of later for the claim?:-
6. The Ex.A.1- is the attested Xerox of the D.D dt.17.2.2004 for the U.S dollars 680 in favour of the complainant. As the written version of the opposite party admits the deposit of the said D.D for the collection and crediting to the account of the complainant there remains no much difficulty in relying upon the said document and holding the contentions of the complainant as to its deposit with the opposite party for the collection and crediting in to the complainant’s account. As the written version of the opposite party admits the deposit of the said D.D on12.3.2004 for the collection, the said facts alleged by the complainant also remains established.
7. The Ex.A.2 and A.3 are the attested Xerox copies of the alleged written representations of the complainant addressed to the opposite party expressing the dis-satisfaction at the delayed conduct of the opposite party. From the details of the contents of written version averments of the Para No.5 and the documentary record in Ex.B.2 to B.8 there appears lot of correspondence from the opposite party for the collection of the said D.D. When the opposite party has collected some amount for rendering the service of the collection of the D.D for its crediting into the complainant’s account it must do it with all care, caution and sincere eagerness to serve the consumer to his benefit and hence any delay on its part in its accomplishment counts to its dis-advantage and liability and hence cannot escape its liability throwing on others conduct to which the complainant has neither any control nor any access. If there is any deligency and consciousness of the need of the complainant and the probable deprival of the complainant at the delayed collection, the opposite party would have proceeded against those properly who work in reality responsible for the said abnormal delay of 5 months in collection instead of pleading mere diligences and filing those documents which will not come to the rescue as the sufferance of the consumer at the deficient conduct of the opposite party counts much than the mere paper correspondence which has not bear any fruit or desire end within the reasonable time.
8. From the averments of the para No.5 of the written version in reference to Ex.B.1 account statement, the value of the said D.D amounting to Rs.31,279/-was credited to the account of the complainant 30.8.2004. The correspondence in Ex.B.2 to B.9 takes any mention of the fault or wanting of the complainant’s side that is standing in the way in collection and crediting the value of the said D.D in to the complainant’s account. Hence, the complainant should not suffer for the abnormal delay occurred at the conduct of the opposite party and its administrative concerns. As the said D.D was admittedly deposited for the collection on 12.3.2004 with the opposite party and as per Ex.B.1 and the written version averments as it was credited to the complainant’s account on 30.8.2004 there appears an abnormal considerables delay of more than 5 months at no fault of the complainant. Hence the opposite party is liable to compensate the mental agony suffered by the complainant at the said delayed conduct of the opposite party in collection and is crediting the value of the D.D in the complainant’s account.
9. In the said circumstances an amount of Rs.5,000/-, as damages to the complainant for the suffered mental agony at the said belated crediting, appears to serve the ends of justice. Therefore, the opposite party should pay to the complainant the said amount of Rs.5,000/-as compensatory damages for the mental agony suffered by the complainant at the said belated creditings.
10. As the opposite party made the complainant to resort the Forum for setting right his legally entitled grievances, the opposite party is liable to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.1,000/-as costs of this litigation.
11. As the D.D amount was credited to the account of the complainant on 30.8.2004 as per Ex.B.1 and the written version contentions of the opposite party and the said credit is being prior to the complainant resorting to the case, the request of the complainant for refund of the D.D amount is rejected.
12. Consequently, the case of the complainant is allowed directing the opposite party to pay Rs.5,000/- as compensatory damages and Rs.1,000/- as costs to the complainant within a month of the receipt of this order failing which the said awarded amount is payable to the complainant with 12% interest without prejudice to the other rights of the complainant for the execution of the supra said order.
Dictated to the Stenographer, typed to the dictation, corrected by us and pronounced in the Open Court, this the 8th day of June, 2005.
MEMBER PRESIDENT MEMBER
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant For the opposite party
-Nil- -Nil-
List of Exhibits Marked
For the complainant For the opposite party
Ex A.1 DD bearing No. 010344 Ex B.1 Account copy of the State
Dt 17.2.2004 for Rs. $680.00. Bank of India regarding to Account
Ex A.2 Truee copy (Xerox) of letter No. 01192/011257 dt 27.09.2004.
Dt 21.7.2004 addressed by complainant Ex B.2 State Commission (Cheque)
To opposite party. Dispatched Registrar S.C. No. 921
Ex A.3 True copy (Xerox of letter dt 12.3.2004.
Dt 19.8.2004 of complainant to Ex B.3 Acknowledgment dt 15.3.04
Opposite party. Of S.B.I Hyderabad.
Ex A.4 Telephone receipt dt 19.8.04 Ex B.4 O/c of Telegram dt 23.6.04.
Ex B.5 O/c of Telegram dt 14.7.04
Of S.B.I, Kurnool to thistle
Hyderabad.
Ex B.6 O/c of Telegram dt 14.7.04 of
SBI Kurnool to Thistle,
Ex B.7 Bunch of Fax Receipts 09 in
Number.
Ex B.8 Letter dt 19.8.2004 of
Opposite party to Hyderabad Main
Branch (Faxed Xerox copy).
Ex B.9 List Cum Advice of other
Originating credits dt 30.8.04 of
Opposite party regarding to the
Complainant.
PRESIDENT
MEMBER MEMBER
BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM: KURNOOL
Present: Sri K.V.H.Prasad, B.A., LL.B., President
Smt C.Preethi, M.A., LL.B., Member
Sri R.Ramachandra Reddy, B.Com., LL.B., Member
Thursday the 16th day of June, 2005
P.P.No.10/2005 in C.D.No.100/2004
B.Saroja,
W/o. B.Siva Sankar,
R/o. D.No. 41/513-1,
Kothapeta,
Kurnool. . . . Petitioner/ Complainant
-Vs-
1. The Chairman/ Managing Director,
I.C.D.S Limited,
Red Office,
Syndicate House,
Manipal – 576 119.
2. The Branch Manager,
I.C.D.S Ltd,
D.No. 48-326, 1st floor,
Gandhi Nagar, Kurnool. . . . Respondents/ Opposite parties
This PP coming on this day for counter in the presence of Smt L.Sumithra Rani, Advocate for Petitioner and Sri N. Srinivasa Char, Advocate for Respondent 1 and 2 in representation and upon apologing the material papers on record the Forum made the following
O R D ER
1 .This P.P is filed seeking to proceed under Sec.27 C.P. Act against the respondent for the non-compliance of the order dt.10.12.2004 passed by this Forum in C.D.No.100-2004. The respondent places for the consideration the Judgment Order of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court passed on 15th October, 2004 in Company Petition NO.201-2002 abating the Suits, Execution Petitions, complaints/Appeals filed against the Company (i.e I.C.D.S. Limited- respondent of this petition) before the National Commission, State Commission and District Consumer’s Forums. The said order running in 95 pages dealing exhaustively of the matters, liabilities concerning to the respondent company and directing certain schemes and committees for working out the reliefs of the claimants and subject to several conditions incorporated in the said detailed lengthy order.
2. This Forum is too little to interpret the compliances and non-compliances, commissions or omissions of the said order. Hence, it is for the petitioner to contend before the concerned authority empowered under the said Order of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court for the adjudication of the said matters of any non-compliance or omissions on the part of the respondent which may credit to the advantage and the benefit of the petitioner herein.
3. Hence, in the light of the supra stated orders of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court which abates all the proceedings against the respondent Company in all the Consumer Forums of the top to the low. There remains nothing for this Forum to adjudicate in this application of the petitioner and consequently this petition is dismissed in the circumstances afore said.
Pronounced in the Open Court, this the 16th day of June, 2005.
PRESIDENT
MEMBER MEMBER
