BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM:KURNOOL
Present: Sri.K.V.H. Prasad, B.A., LL.B President
And
Smt. C.Preethi, M.A.LL.B., Lady Member
Thursday the 6th day of November , 2008
C.C.No. 132/07
Between:
M/s. Khuddus Real Estates,Represented by its Proprietor,
Shaik Roshan Basha,S/o. Shaik Kudus Miah,Business,Resident of Kurnool. … Complainant
Versus
1. The Branch Manager,
State Bank of India,TIF Branch,Kurnool.
2. The Branch Manager,
State Bank of India,Budhawara Pet Branch,Kurnool.
3. The Regional Manager,
State Bank of India,U Con Plaza,Kurnool. … Opposite parties
This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri. M. D. V. Jogaiah Sarma , Advocate, for the complainant, and Sri. V.V.Krishnama Raju Advocate, for the opposite parties and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following.
ORDER
(As per Smt. C.Preethi, Lady Member)
C.C.No.132/07
1. This consumer complaint of the complainant is filed U/S 12 of C.P.Act seeking a direction on opposite parties to credit to the complainants account of Rs. 5,00,000/- with 12% interest, from 15-07-2006 till payment, Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for mental agony, Rs.5,000/- as cost of the complaint and any other relief or reliefs which the complainant is entitled in the circumstances of the case.
2. The brief facts of the complainant’s case is that the complainant is running a Real Estate business in the name and style of Kuddus Real Estate Business. The complainant is having a cash credit account in opposite party No.1 bank bearing No.30020892005 and it is an on line account. On 15-07-2006 the complainant deposited a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- into his above account through opposite party No.2 branch. Subsequently on verification into his account the complainant noticed that deposited amount of Rs.5,00,000/- was not credited to his account and sent a requisition letter dated 09-12-2006 to opposite party No.3 requesting to verify and traceout the lost amount. The opposite party No.3 even though receive the said letter did not reply. The complainant further submit that the opposite party No.2 misappropriated the deposited amount without crediting the said Rs.5,00,000/- and got issued legal notice dated 08-01-2007 to opposite parties requesting to traceout the missed amount. All the opposite parties though receive the letter did not respond but opposite party No.2 replied vide letter dated 19-01-2007 with false and baseless allegations. The above conduct of the opposite parties constrained the complainant to resorted to the forum for reliefs.
3. In support of his case the complainant relied on the following documents viz., (1) counter filed dated 15-07-2006 as to the credit of Rs.5,00,000/- to the account No. 30020892005 , (2) office copy of complaint dated 09-12-2006 to opposite party No.3, (3) office copy of legal notice dated 08-01-2007 issued by complainants counsel to opposite parties 1 and 3 , (4) reply of opposite party No.2 dated 19-01-2007 to Ex.A3 and (5) account statement of account No. 30020892005 for the period 01-04-2006 to 19-07-2007 , besides to the sworn affidavit of the complainant in reiteration of his complaint averments and the above documents are marked as Ex.A1 to A5 for its appreciation in this case and replies to the interrogatories exchanged.
4. In pursuance to the notice of this forum as to this case of the complainant the opposite parties appeared through their standing counsel and contested the case by filling written version by opposite party No.2 and adoption memo by opposite parties 1 and 3.
5. The written version of opposite parties denies the complaint as not maintainable either in law or on facts but admits the complainant was having a cash credit account with opposite party No.1 bearing No. 30020892005 and the said account is on line account . But alleges that the counter foil dated 15-07-2006 for Rs.5,00,000/- was a fabricated one with forged signature . The complainant indulged in this forged Act due of animosity developed by him against the then Branch Manager Sri. P. Srinivasa Bhat for non release of second installment of housing loan. The legal notice is issued in the name of P.Srinivasa Bhat and opposite party No.1 and reply is given by the then Manager P. Srinivasa Bhat to the complainant . From the above it is clear that there are certain complex cities in the account of complainant which forced the then manager P.Srinivasa Bhat to stall the disbursement of second installment of housing loan which led to personal animosity the said P. Srinivasa Bhat has emphatically denied the receipt of an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and also denied the signature on the pay in slip was not that to his signature and such being the case there is no deficiency of service on part of opposite parties to come within the perview of Consumer Protection Act and lastly seeks dismissal of the case with cost.
6. In support of their case the opposite parties did not file any documents but relied on the sworn affidavit of opposite party No.1 and 3 , besides to the third party affidavit of Srinivasa Bhat and replies to the interrogatories exchanged.
7. Hence, the point for consideration is to what relief the complainant is entitled alleging deficiency of service on part of opposite parties .
8. It is the case of the complainant that he deposited Rs.5,00,000/- into his account bearing No. 30020892005 vide Ex.A1 . The Ex.A1 is a counter foil dated 15-07-2006 of opposite parties bank. It envisages the credit of Rs.5,00,000/- to the account of Kuddus Real Estate account bearing No. 30020892005 on 15-07-2006. On verifying the entries of his account the complainant noticed that the deposited amount of Rs.5,00,000/- on 15-07-2006 was not credit to his account. The Ex.B5 is the statement of account issued by opposite parties bank to the complainant. It shows that entries from 10-04-2006 to 19-07-2007, no credit entry of Rs.5,00,000/- is show in the said statement of account. The complainant thereafter on 09-12-2006 addressed a letter to opposite party No.3 requesting to verify his account and traceout the amount deposited by him on 15-07-2006 and there was no reply to said letter. As there was no response from opposite parties side the complainant got issued legal notice dated 08-01-2007 to all the opposite parties , the opposite party No.2 replied vide Ex.A4 dated 19-01-2007 stating that counter foil issued on 15-07-2006 was for transfer transaction of funds transferred of Rs.5,00,000/- from Mr. Hyder Ali Khan account to his personal account and it is not a counter foil acknowledging the credit of cash. The complainant submits he deposited cash and due to misplacement of his deposited amount of Rs.5,00,000/- he suffered mental agony and lose to his business.
9. On the other side the opposite parties submits that the counter foil dated 15-07-2006 for Rs.5,00,000/- is a fabricated one with forged signature . Taking the above plea into consideration, if the said counter foil is a forged document with forged signature then how can the stamp of opposite party bank is there on the said counter foil. Hence it cannot be said that, the said counter foil is a forged one.
10. The other plea of opposite parties is that the complainant developed animosity with the then Branch Manager P. Srinivas Bhat is not releasing second installment of housing loan. The opposite parties except taking the above plea did not made any endeavour to substantiate it by placing any cogent relevant supporting material . Hence , the above plea is also rejected.
11. The opposite party also submitted that the legal notice in Ex.A3 was addressed to P.Srinivas Bhat and he himself gave reply vide Ex.A4 and the said P. Srinivas Bhat gave his affidavit stating that he had not signed the counter foil in Ex.A1. Merely taking a stand that the counter foil in Ex.A1 was not singed by the then Branch Manager P. Srinivas Bhat does not mean that the said counter foil is a forged one. Onus is on the opposite parties to prove that said counter foil was not issued by them and the said documents was forged by the complainant as there are personnel animosity between the complainant and the then Branch Manager P. Srinivas Bhat. The opposite parties utterly failed to prove their case by placing any such material in substantiation of their plea.
12. To sum up, the opposite parties failed to prove their case by placing any supporting material and it is clear that the complainant vide ExA1 counter foil dated 15-07-2006 deposited Rs. 5 lakhs in his account and the said amount was not credited to his account, which is clear deficiency of service on part of opposite parties. The opposite party is not crediting the said amount to complainant account caused sufferance to the complainant and the opposite parties have to compensation by paying Rs.10,000/- as compensation for said sufferance and Rs.5,000/- as costs of the case, besides to crediting to the complainants account of Rs.5,00,000/-. As any deficiency appears on part of the opposite party No.1 , the case against him is dismissed .
13. In the result, the case against opposite party No.1 is dismissed and is allowed against opposite parties 2 and 3 directing the opposite parties 2 and 3 jointly and severally to credit to the complainants cash credit account NO.30020892005 Rs.5,00,000/- in opposite party No.1 bank and also to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation and Rs.5,000/- as costs of this case within one month from the date of receipt of this order. In default the opposite parties 2 an 3 jointly and severally liable to pay the supra award with 12% interest from the date of default till realization.
Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open bench on this the 6th day of November,2008 .
Sd/- Sd/-
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. Counter filed dated 15-07-2006 as to the credit of
Rs.5,00,000/- to the account No.30020892005.
Ex.A2. Office copy of complainant dated 09-12-2006 to OP.No.3.
Ex.A3. Office coy of legal notice dated 08-01-2007.
Ex.A4. Reply of OP dated 19-01-2007 to Ex.A3.
Ex.A5. Account statement of Account No.30020892005 for the
Period 01-04-2006 to 19-07-2007.
List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties: Nil
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
// Certified free copy communicated under Rule 4 (10) of the
A.P.S.C.D.R.C. Rules, 1987//
Copy to:-
Complainant and Opposite parties
Copy was made ready on :
Copy was dispatched on :
