DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ANANTAPUR PRESENT:- Sri S.Chinnaiah, B.A., B.L., President Smt.S.Lalitha, M.A., M.L., Lady Member Thursday, the 31st day of July, 2008 C.C.No.41/2008 Between: U.Chandrasekhar Reddy S/o U.Gangi Reddy Owner of the lorry No.AP-02-T-0863 Sreedhargatta Village Bommanahal Mandal Anantapur District. … Complainant Vs. The Branch Manager, Karur Vysya Bank Ltd. Subash Road Anantapur. … Opposite party This case coming on this day for final hearing before us in the presence of Sri P.G.Vittal, advocate for the complainant and Sri P.Krishna Swamy Kumar, Advocate for the opposite party and after perusing the material papers on record and after hearing the arguments of both sides, the Forum delivered the following: ORDER (Per Smt.S.Lalitha, Lady Member) 1. This is a complaint filed by the complainant under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to direct the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.83,275/- with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of complaint till the date of realization. 2. The contents of the complaint in brief are that the complainant is the registered owner of lorry bearing No.AP-02-T-0863, which was seized by the Vigilance Police, Anantapur in Cr.No.89/2000 on 31-05-2000 on false allegations. The said lorry was released to the complainant, pending enquiry before the Joint Collector, Anantapur vide orders in Rc.No.K3/3701/2000 dt.23-06-2000 on furnishing Bank Guarantee bearing No.27/2000-2001 for Rs.26,764/- obtained from the opposite party-Bank on 21-06-2000 and the same is valid up-to 21-06-2003. While so, the Joint Collector, Anantapur in his final orders u/s 6A vide Rc.No.3701/7827/2000 dt.21-05-2001 ordered to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- on the lorry and directed the District Supply Officer, Anantapur to realize the penal amount of Rs.1,000/- from the owner of the lorry by invoking Bank Guarantee furnished by him for Rs.26,764/-. The complainant filed an appeal challenging the orders of the Joint Collector, Anantapur dt.21-05-2001 on the file of District & Sessions Judge, Anantapur and the said Criminal Appeal No.45/02 was disposed on 24-02-2006 confirming the orders of the Joint Collector, Anantapur. Hence, the complainant approached the Joint Collector for return of Bank Guarantee and in turn he was directed to approach the opposite party. The complainant approached the opposite party several times, but they did not give any reply or refund the Bank Guarantee amount after deducting Rs.1,000/- towards fine i.e. Rs.25,764/- with interest. The Bank Guarantee was kept under deposit Ananthasree Cash Certificate by the complainant with the opposite party as security and obtained Bank Guarantee for 3 years, which carries interest. As the opposite party failed to refund the amount of Rs.25,764/- with interest up-to-date, there is gross failure and negligence in their service. The complainant got issued registered notice on 27-12-2007 to the opposite party and the same was received by them, but they did not pay the amount. Hence, there is gross negligence and deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party in refunding the Bank Guarantee amount. Thus, the case of the complainant. 3. The opposite party filed a counter opposing the complaint contents contending that the complaint is misconceived. The observation in criminal appeal No.45/02 on the file of Sessions Judge, Anantapur that the complainant involved in 8 cases previously and he was punished with fine for the reason that he was doing illegal transport of paddy from Andhra Pradesh to Karnataka without licence and records., After receipt of letter dt.20-03-2002, the opposite party issued Pay Order dt.02-04-2002 for Rs.1,000/- in favour of District Supply Officer, Anantapur towards invoking of Bank Guarantee by the Government. On the same day, the opposite party issued another pay order No.671899 dt.02-04-2002 for Rs.30,122/- in favour of the complainant towards refund of remaining balance of Rs.25,764/- with accrued interest. The complainant has received the said Pay order and acknowledged the same. He also presented it through his bankers i.e. Sree Anantha Grameena Bank Ltd., Uddehal Branch for encashment and encashed the same. Though he received the balance amount with accrued interest, he audaciously and impudently filed the unjust complaint to have wrongful gain and to cause wrongful loss to the opposite party. Since the complainant caused much annoyance to the opposite party, the opposite party is claiming exemplary costs of Rs.10,000/- against the complainant. Hence, to dismiss the complaint by directing the complainant to pay exemplary costs of Rs.10,000/-. 4. After filing the counter by the opposite party, the complainant filed a memo not pressing the complaint. Notice given to the counsel appearing for the opposite party, who endorsed to award exemplary costs as the complaint is frivolous and vexatious and that the complainant filed this present complaint even after receiving the amount from the opposite party. 5. Heard arguments both sides. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the complainant contended that after filing of the complaint, a notice was issued to the opposite party, but no reply was given. His next contention is that the complainant approached the opposite party-Bank and verified the account, no amount was sent by pay order etc., His next contention is that even after filing a memo for furnishing certain documents regarding payment of the amount, the opposite party neither produced the documents nor gave any reply. His next contention is that in the counter it is stated that pay order for Rs.30,122/- dt.02-04-2002 was sent. His next contention is that once again to verify with the Bank officials of Sree Anantha Grameena Bank, Sreedhargatta, the complainant is not pressing the complaint. The learned counsel appearing for the opposite party vehemently contended that the complainant though received the amount has come forward with the present complaint to have unlawful gain. His next contention is that the very complaint filed by the complainant is frivolous and vexatious as fully knowing very well that he received the amount, he has filed the complaint claiming the amount. 7. After going through the rival contentions, we see that no substance in the contention of the counsel for the complainant. It is no doubt true that the complainant has come forward with a memo not pressing the complaint. The learned counsel for the complainant contended that the complainant is at liberty to withdraw his complaint whenever as he likes. On this aspect, it can not be accepted for the reason that the complainant has filed a memo after the opposite party filed a counter bringing notice of the payment of money to the complainant. As seen from the counter, it is stated that on 02-04-2002 the opposite party issued pay order for Rs.30,122/- towards refund of the remaining balance of Rs.25,764/- with accrued interest. On the same day, the complainant received the said pay order and acknowledged the receipt of the same. He also presented it through his Bank i.e. Sree Anantha Grameena Bank, Uddehal for encashment and encashed the same. It is further stated that though he received the balance amount with accrued interest, he audaciously and impudently filed this unjust complaint to have wrongful gain for him and to cause wrongful loss to the opposite party. Hence, the complainant having fully knowing very well that the opposite party paid the amount on 02-04-2002 and after acknowledging the amount, the complainant has filed this complaint, which is unreasonable. On the other hand, after seeing the counter filed by the opposite party only, the complainant filed a memo into the court not pressing the complaint. It is no doubt true that the complainant issued notice to the opposite party to produce certain documents after filing of the complaint. The opposite party neither gave reply nor produced the documents as required by the complainant for the reasons that they have already paid the amount to the complainant and the complainant has received the same. Hence, under the circumstances, the complainant filed the complaint is certainly frivolous and vexatious; it can be curtailed by way of imposing costs on the complainant. The opposite party is claiming a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards exemplary costs as the complainant gave unnecessary trouble by dragging them to the Forum. In our considered opinion, granting of Rs.1,000/- towards costs is reasonable. 8. In the result, by virtue of the memo filed by the complainant and as the complainant has already received the amount as claimed by him, the complaint is dismissed with costs of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) payable by the complainant to the opposite party within one month from the date of receipt of the order. Dictated to the Steno, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in open Forum, this the 31st day of July, 2008. Sd/- Sd/- LADY MEMBER PRESIDENT DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM, DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM, ANANTAPUR ANANTAPUR Typed by JPNN
......................Smt.S.Lalitha
......................Sri S.Chinnaiah | |
