BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM: KURNOOL
Present: Sri K.V.H.Prasad, B.A., LL.B., President
Smt.C.Preethi, Hon’ble Lady Member
Wednesday the 27th day of September, 2006
CC.No. 34/2006
K.Venkata Rayudu,
S/o K.Madilety,
Aged about 38 Years, Hindu,
R/o Charlopalli Village,
Owk (M), Kurnool Dist. . . . Complainant
Versus
1) Branch Manager,
District Co-operative Central Bank Limited,
Owk (M), Kurnool District.
2) The General Manager,
District Co-operative Bank Limited,
Near Collector Complex,
Kurnool District. . . . Opposite parties
This complaint coming on this day for Orders in the presence of Sri.N.Venkata Ramana Prasad, Advocate, Kurnool for complainant and Sri.K.Ramakrishna Rao, Advocate, Kurnool for opposite parties No.1 & 2, and stood over for consideration till this day, the Forum made the following.
O r d e r
(As per Smt.C.Preethi, Hon’ble Ladymember)
CC.No.34/2006
1. This consumer complaint of the complainant is filed under section 11 & 12 of CP Act, 1986 seeking a direction on the opposite parties to pay daily deposit amount of Rs.10,000/- with 24% interest per annum, Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony Rs.1,000/- towards costs of the complainant and any other relief or reliefs which the complainant is entitled in the circumstances of the case.
2. The brief facts of the complainants case is that the complainant on 01-08-2003 opened a daily deposit account bearing No.890 in opposite party No.1 bank by depositing an amount of Rs.300/- per day on the advise of one Ramlal who is the collection agent of opposite party No.1 and thereafter the complainant used to deposit amount whenever he had cash reserves with him and the deposited amount of various days come to a total of Rs.10,000/-. Due to financial problems the complainant was unable to deposit the amounts into the bank from 09/06/2004. Thereafter the complainant approached opposite party No.1 to permit him to with draw the amounts deposited along with cumulative interest but all the requests were invain. Being vexed the complainant got issued legal notice dated24-02-2006 on opposite parties, but there was no reply to the said notices. The above said lapsive conduct of opposite parties constrained the complainant to file this case before the Forum.
3. In substantiation of his case the complainant relied on the following documents Viz (1) daily deposit pass book bearing No.890 (2) bunch of eighteen deposit receipts (3) office copy of legal notice dated 24-02-2006 (4) postal acknowledgement of opposite party No.1 as to the receipt of Ex.A3 and (5) postal acknowledgement as to the receipt of Ex.A3 by opposite party no.2, besides to the s worn affidavit of the complainant is reiteration of his complainant averments and the above documents are marked as Ex.A1 to Ex.A5 for its appreciation in this case. The complainant caused interrogatories to opposite party no.1 and suitable replied to the interrogatories caused by opposite party No.1.
4. In pursuance of the notice of this Forum as to this case of the complainant the opposite party No.1 appeared through their standing counsel and filed written version. The opposite party No.2 remained absent though out the case proceedings.
5. The written version of opposite party No.1 submits that Ramlal acts on his own and he is the adviser to the complainant and not an agent of opposite parties and admits the complainant joined the daily deposits scheme with account No.890 with opposite party no.1 and the complainant engaged himself to pay Rs.300/- per day to Ramlal and who inturn has to remit the said amount to opposite party No.1 and the complainant at no time directly remitted any amount to opposite party No.1 Mr.Ramlal the adviser of complainant has credited in all a sum of Rs.1,800/- on six different dates at the rate of Rs.300/- and the allegation that the complainant remitted Rs.10,000/- to the said account is false the pass book and the receipts filed by the complainant does not bear the signature of opposite parties, the complainant in collusion with Ramlal had created the pass book containing remittance to the tune of Rs.10,000/- which the opposite parties are not aware. After receipt of legal notice dated 24-02-2006 it was found that only Rs.1,800/- is lying to the complainants account and requested the complainant to receives the said amount which he refused. The ledger extract of opposite party No.1 clearly shows the maintaining of regular course of the bank business. The entries in the pass book are self serving and fabricated one and the complainant created the said documents in collusion with Ramlal. Hence there is no deficiency of service on part of opposite parties as the complainant paid only to the Ramlal who is his adviser therefore, there is no cause of action for the complainant to filed this case before the Forum and lastly seeks for the dismissal of complaint with costs.
6. In substantiation of their case the opposite parties relied on the following documents Viz (1) copy of ledger extract of account No.890 of K.V.Rayudu (complainant), besides to the sworn affidavit of the opposite party in reiteration of his written version and the above documents is marked as Ex.B1 for its appreciation in this case. The opposite party No.1 caused interrogatories to the complainant and suitablely replied to the interrogatories caused by the complainant.
7. Hence, the point for consideration is to what relief the complainant is entitled alleging deficiency of service on part of opposite parties.
8. The case of the complainant is that he deposited Rs.300/- per day as and when he had cash reserves totaling an amount of Rs.10,000/- under daily cash deposit scheme with opposite party No.1 on the advise of one Ramlal. As the complainant was unable to pay the deposits requested opposite party No.1 to refund the said deposited amounts with accumulative interest, but as against to it the opposite parties alleges that Ramlal is the adviser of the complainant and the complainant paid to the said Ramlal who is inturn paid to opposite party No.1 and the complainant never deposited the said amount directly. In substantiating his case the complainant relied on the Ex.A1 to Ex.A5, the Ex.A1 is the Daily Deposit Pass Book issued to the complainant alleges to have been issued by opposite party No.2, but the aid pass book does not bears the signature and stamp of opposite party No.2 bank, the Ex.A2 are the bunch of 18 receipts issued to complainant, even the said receipts does not bear the signature and stamp of opposite party No.1, on the contrary the opposite party No.2 alleges that the complainant in collusion with Ramlal has created the above said to exhibits and alleges that they are not issued by opposite party bank to the complainant. Hence, no credence can be given to said exhibits, the Ex.A3 is the legal notice dated 24-02-2006 issued by complainants counsel to opposite parties, the same grievances such as payment of Rs.300/- by the complainant under daily deposit scheme to opposite parties and seeking return of said deposit amounts and the Ex.A4 and E.A5 are the postal acknowledgements of opposite party No.1 and opposite party No.2 as to the receipt of Ex.A3 by opposite parties. None of the material filed by the complainant shows to privy of opposite parties bank to the complainant as none of them bears and signature and stamp of opposite party bank. The complainant in his complaint averments alleges that he has directly deposited amounts into opposite party bank but produces no cogent material evidencing the same, but on the other had the Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 envisages contra to that nor the complainant placed any cogent material that the amounts paid under Ex.A2 bunch of receipts were through the agent of opposite party bank, while such is so the ledger extract shows six deposits all totaling Rs.1,800/- among them the transaction dated 05-11-2003, 24-09-2003, 13-08-2003, 03-09-2003, finds receipts in Ex.A2. In the absence of any cogent material from the complainants side that the said Ramlal was agent of opposite party bank and in the light of complaint averments as to the direct depositing the amounts in to his account envisages that the said deposits if any were made through Ramlal was as agent of complainant and not of opposite party bank. Therefore, the complainant failed to establish his privy with opposite party bank as to hold any of the opposite party banks liability to the other amounts other than covered under the ledger extract (Ex.B1). As their being no refusal of the opposite party bank for payment of said amounts in the ledger extract and the refusal is any being to the other deposited amounts, which the complainant submits during arguments as were made through Ramlal who is not agent of opposite party bank. Hence, there appears no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party bank towards the complainant as alleged.
9. The complainant in support of his case relied on the flowing citation reported in II 2004 C.P.J. Page 120 between Manager U.C.O. Bank, Juanpal Branch -Vs- Pradeep Kumar Maharana and another, wherein, it was held that when misappropriation was done by the authorized agent of the bank, then bank is vicariously liable to pay entire amount for the mis-conduct of its authorized agent, but in the present case the complainant failed to prove his case that he deposited amounts through the authorized agent of opposite party bank, hence, the complainant cannot rely on the above citation.
10. The opposite party in support of their case relied on the following citations (1) High Court of Andhra Pradesh between Chief Engineer, I.T.D.A. (T.W. Department) Hyderabad and others -Vs- Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Visakapatnam and other, reported in (2005) ALT Page 36, where in, it was held that no amount of evidence can be looked into in the absence of a pleading as to an allegation (2) Yaquoob Ali Khan -Vs- Singh Auto Services Tractor Company and other reported in 2005 II ALT Page 27 (National Commission), it was held that a Consumer should approach a Forum with clean hands.
11. To sum up following the above mentioned citations, the complainant failed to prove that he deposited the amounts to opposite party bank through the authorized agent of opposite party bank and there is no averments in his complaint that he deposited the said amount through authorized aged opposite party bank. Hence, the complainant miserablely failed to prove his case and the complainant is not remaining entitled t o any of the reliefs.
12. Consequently the complaint is dismissed.
Dictation to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced in the Open Forum this the 27th day of September, 2006.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant :Nil For the opposite parties: Nil
List of Exhibits marked for the complainant:-
Ex A1 Daily Deposit pass book of the complianant.
Ex A2 Bunch of (18) deposit receipts.
Ex A3 Office copy of legal notice.
Ex.A4 Postal Acknowledgement.
Ex.A5 Postal Acknowledgement.
List of Exhibits marked for the opposite parties:-
Ex.B1 Xerox copy of ledger extract of Account No.890 of
K.Venkata Ramudu..
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Copy to:-
1.Sri N.Venkataramana Prasad, Advocate, Kurnool.
2.Sri K.Ramakrishna Rao, Advocate, Kurnool.
Copy was made ready on :
Copy was dispatched on :
Copy was delivered to parties :
