DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD

Dated this the 9^th day of July, 2024

Present      :   Sri. Vinay Menon V., President

                    :   Smt. Vidya A., Member                      

                      :  Sri. Krishnankutty N.K., Member                                                            Date of Filing: 18/03/2024  

                                 CC/95/2024

Gokulraj C.,

‘Sreerupa’,

Chandranagar, Palakkad                                                                                 -                    Complainant

(By Adv. John John)

                                                                                                                              Vs  

1. The Branch Manager,

Canara Bank,

Kalpathy Branch, Palakkad – 678 003.

2. Chairman cum Managing Director,

Canara Bank, 2^nd Main Sampige Road,

Malleswaram, Bangalore – 360 003.                          -                            Opposite parties

(O.P.s by Adv. M/s. Vanitha G, Vinod Chembath & Abhishek C.R.)

                                             ORDER IN THE QUESTION OF MAINTAINABILITY

                By Sri. Vinay Menon V., President.

1. This complaint was initially filed by the complainant as party in person. Thereafter Shri.John John filed vakalath and enter appearance. 
2. Complaint pleadings are that the complainant transferred Rs.7140/- to the account of one Mr. Mohanakrishnan on 30/10/2023. By a clerical mistake on the part of the recipient himself, there was a mistake in the account number and the amount was credited to a different account. Upon finding that there was an error, the complainant corrected the error and sought transfer of the aforesaid amount to the account held by Shri. Mohankrishnan. It was only after a delay of over two months that the said amount was transferred to the account of Shri. Mohanakrishnan. The inordinate delay is a deficiency in service. This complaint is filed seeking cost and compensation and other incidental reliefs.
3. The opposite parties filed version contending that the complainant is not having an account with the opposite party and therefore is not a customer or consumer of the opposite parties.  The complainant had effected the NEFT transfer through his banker, Union bank of India, to an account maintained with the opposite parties. Even though fund transfer was done on 30/10/2023, intimation was received by the OPs only on 22/12/2023 from the NEFT cell of Union Bank of India. Amounts were reversed on 29/12/2023 after requisite verification.
4. Based on the pleadings above, the matter was taken up for hearing on the question of maintainability of the complaint as against OPs by the complainant.  At this juncture, the complaint engaged a counsel, who filed an application as IA 311/2024    seeking impleadment of Union Bank of India, Chandranagar Branch on the ground that the bank transfers were carried out through the bank sought to be impleaded. 
5.  It is to be noted, based on the pleadings and the contents in IA 311/2024, that the complainant is not a customer of the opposite parties. Complainant is a customer of Union Bank of India, who was not a party to the proceedings when the complaint was instituted. Amount was transferred through his bank to OP bank. OP bank is only a recipient bank, who had only credited the amounts transferred to it by the complainant based on the information furnished by the complainant himself.
6. Since the complainant is not a customer or consumer of the OP bank, this complaint is void ab initio. As the complaint is filed by an octogenarian, we presume that there was an error in judgment on the part of the complainant in comprehending who the actual culprit is and upon whom the responsibility for error and consequent delay is to be cast. Merely because he transferred amounts to the account of Sri. Mohan Krishnan, account holder in O.P. bank, complainant will not become a consumer of the services rendered by the O.P. There is no cause of action for the complainant either. Complainant is not a “Complainant” as contemplated under the C.P. Act, 2019. This complaint is a nullity in the eye of law.
7. When the complaint is void ab-initio and a nullity in the eye of law, no fresh impleadment of any parties would make the situation any better than it already is. Further, the entire pleadings of the complainant, either in the memorandum of complaint or the affidavit accompanying I.A. 311/2024, do not depict an iota of misdeed on the part of the parties sought to be impleaded by the complainant. Resultantly IA also fails.
8. This complaint and I.A. 311/2024 are accordingly dismissed.

Pronounced in open court on this the 9^th day of July, 2024.

                               Sd/-                                                                                                                             

                                                                                                                                                  Vinay Menon V

                                                                                   President

                                                                                         Sd/-

                          Vidya.A

                                              Member        

                               Sd/-

                Krishnankutty N.K.

                                                                                                                                                   Member           

NB : Parties are directed to take back all extra set of  documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5) of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020, failing which they will be weeded out.