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
Tuesday the 30th day of August, 2005
CD NO. 25/2005
B. Christopher Joseph, S/o. B.N. Benjamin,
H.No. 87/1060/3/Ganesh Nagar-1, Kurnool.
. . . Complainant
-Vs-
1. The Branch Manager, Andhra Bank,
Budhavarapeta, Kurnool.
2. The Branch Manager, Andhra Bank,
Vignana Mandiram Branch, B-Camp, Kurnool.
3. D. Benjamin Franklin, S/o. D. Nathaniel,
B/B 324, B.Camp, Kurnool. . . . Opposite parties
This complaint coming on 29.08.2005 for arguments in the presence Sri G.Naga Lakshmi Reddy, Advocate for complainant, Sri A. Ramasubba Reddy, Advocate for opposite party No.1 and Sri L. Hari Haranatha Reddy, Advocate for opposite party No.2 and Sri Y.Sreenivasulu, Advocate for opposite party No.3 and stood over for consideration till this day the Forum made the following.
O R D E R
(As per Sri K.V.H. Prasad, President)
1. This Consumer Disputes case of the complainant is field under section 12 of C.P. Act seeking compensation of Rs.10,000/- for the mental agony ensued at the deficient conduct of i.e opposite parties and restore the same SB accounts to the States quo anti and costs of the case alleging the deficiency of service of the opposite parties 1 and 2 in transferring the SB account No.s 9020 and 72087 at the instance of opposite party No.3 who is having no individual legal existence and privy to the said acts being not duly elected but only at the mediator’s compromise as Vice President to operate account in joint with the treasure and there by not competent in seeking transfer of the bank accounts of Prarthana Mandiram C-Camp, Kurnool from Andhra Bank Branch Budhaverpet (OP NO.1) to Andhra Bank Branch Vignana Mandira, B-Camp, Kurnool.
2. In pursuance of the receipt of the notice of this Forum as to this case of the complainant the opposite parties 1 to 3 caused their appearance and contested the case denying the bonafidies in the cause of action of the complainant and their liability for complainant’s claim.
3. The written version of opposite party 1 and 2 submits that as per resolution submitted to it while the complainant is Vice President and OP No.3 is Secretary and one Edward is the treasurer of the said Prarthana Mandiram and as per resolution dated 8.10.2003 and bye- law number (1) of said Prarthana Mandiram, the Bank accounts of said institution has tobe operated jointly by secretary and treasurer as its duly authorized persons. Hence the complainant as vice President of said institution has no authority to handle and operate the bank accounts of said institution. Nor the complainant filed any authorization in his favour to handle and operate with the bank accounts of said institution subsequent to election as Vice President. Therefore the OP No.3 in joint with the treasure of said institution are competent persons to deal with the operation of the bank accounts of said institutions and the fact of the election of OP No.3 as secretary of said institution is in the know of the complainant who is Vice President and the complainant raised any objection for said powers of the op No.3 and the treasurer of said institution till the issued of notice dated 9.12.2004. As per the Bank rules the bank (OPNO.1) cannot object for opening of the account or transferring of existence account sought by the authorized person of said institution and hence it did not violate any binding rules and principles of natural justice or any guidelines in regard to the transfer of the account of said institution at the requisition of OP No.3 and treasure of institution, which was routed through the OP No.2 who satisfied with the identity of account holder. As the complainant’s claim and case is vexatious and without any bonafidies seeks the dismissal of the complaint with exemplary costs.
4. The written versions of OP No.3 besides denying the bonafides of complainant case, deny the locus standie of the complainant to the bank accounts of said institution (Prarthana Mandiram C-Camp, Kurnool) and of any disputes as to election of its office bearers and of any elderly decisions authorizing the complainant as Vice President of said institution to operate and to handle bank accounts of said institution and any violations by of any bye law or elderly decision in operating accounts with Op No.2 and seeking transfer of said institution bank accounts from op No.1 to OP No.2. It alleges the election of the op No.3 as secretary, one Edward as treasurer and the complainant as Vice President of said institution in election held on 24.8.2003. As per the constitution and bye laws and the resolution of Executive body dated 17.8.2003 the bank accounts of said institution as to be handled and operated by secretary in joint with the treasure of said institution and the decision of said executive body as to any disputes is final and binds all the office bearers. As the acts of the OP No.3 are bonafide and were, duly authorized the case of the complainant against him is vexatious and without any bonafidies and so seeks the dismissal of the complaint case with exemplary costs.
5. In substation of its contentions while the complainant side as relied upon documentary record marked in Ex A.1 to A.6 and interrogatories and replies exchanged with opposite parties, besides to its sworn affidavit in reiteration of complaint averments the OP side has made reliance on documentary record in Ex B.1 to B.6 and interrogatories and replies exchanged with complainant, besides to the sworn affidavit of op No.1 and 3 in reiteration of its defence.
6. Hence the point for consideration is whether the complainant has made out any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties towards him entitling him to the claim made :-
7. The Ex A.1 and A.2 while are the original pass books of account No. 9020 and 72087 standing in the name of A/c holder for Prarthana Mandiram C-Camp. Kurnool, the Ex A.6 is the cheque book pertaining to Ex A.2 account. The instruction No.5 of Ex A.6 says the unused cheques should be returned to the bank at the time of closer or transfer of account. These documents Ex A.1, A.2 and A.6 produced by the complainant or taken reference by the complainant to say the opposite party No.1 has violated the said instructions in transferring the account of the said institutions at the instruction of OPNo.3 and another and committed deficiency of service towards him by non compliance of the mandatory instruction which is to be scrupulously followed by the account holder and the bank while effecting transfer of account.
8. The production of the above said Ex A.1 to A.6 by the complainant into this case record for appreciation is showing their undoubted custody in him. The Ex B.1 letter dated 20.7.2004 addressed by the op No.3 and treasurer of said Prarthana Mandiram, C-Camp, Kurnool, alleges the pass books and cheques of said bank account of said institution were not handed over by the previous governing body. In said circumstances the custody of Ex A.1, A.2 and A.6 and its production into case record by the complainant envisages the truth alleged in Ex B.1 as to land not handing over of the pass books and cheque book of said accounts of said institution by previous governing body to which the complainant was said tobe secretary. As there appears bonafidies in reasons assigned in Ex B.1 for not complying the relevant instructions of the pass books while seeking the transfer of the said account by the authorized competent person establishing their identity to the satisfaction of the Bank in seeking the transfer of account of said institution there appears every bonafidies and good faith in the action of the opposite parties in transferring the account as requested by the competent authority of said institution. Therefore there remains any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties towards the complainant especially when the complainant has ceased to be secretary in succeeding governing body of said institution and left with any competency and authority to handle and operate the bank accounts of said institutions in the capacity of vice president of said institution while the Ex B.1 was submitted by the competent person of said
institution accordance with bye law No. 18(1) mentioned in the Ex B.3.
9. As the complainant by virtue of unanimous election of vice president of said institution vide Ex B.4 and as per by law No. 18 in Ex B.3/B.6 and resolution in Ex B.5 he is not competent to handle and operate the bank accounts of said institution, and the said transfer of bank accounts of said institution from the OP No.1 to OP No.2 branch at the instance of OP No.3 in joint with the treasurer of said institution took place long after said election in which the complainant as Vice President and OP No.3 and A Edward were elected as its, Secretary and treasurer respectively, the action of OP No.3 in joint with said Edward – treasurer of said institution in seeking transfer of bank account of said institution under Ex B.1 form the OP No.1 branch to the OP No.2 branch as remains as of acts of competent person having authority to do so, the act of OP No.1 and OP No.2 in honoring said request by transferring the account as sought does not appear be any acts of omission or commission which may amount to deficiency of service towards the complainant especially when the complainant is having neither any privy nor any competent authority to handle and operate with the said account of said institution. The complainant did not even produce any such cogent material authorizing him to deal with the said Bank accounts of said institution even subsequent to his election as Vice president and of in force on the date of the Op No.3 in joint with treasurer of said institution in seeking transfer of the said bank accounts of said institution from the branch of Op No.1 to OP No.2 branch.
10. Merely because the complainant with held/ retained with him the concerned pass books and cheque books of said institution of bank accounts even after he ceased tobe secretary of said institution and consequent to election as Vice President- in whom the powers of dealing with the Bank accounts of said institution were not vested, for the alterior reasons best known to him, it cannot prevent the competent persons of said institution in exercising their vested power in handling and operating the Bank accounts of said institutions and there by their acts and the acts of Bank which was acted upon its legitimate requests of said authorised person in reference to Bank accounts of said institution as not remaining blame worthy, the case of the complainant not only remaining vexatious but also devoid of any bonafides and there by not justifying his case against the opposite parties especially against Op No.1 and 2 who are sued for no fault of theirs and against Op No.3 against whom any relief was sought. Hence the complainant is not remaining entitled to the claim made and on the other hand is remaining liable to the exemplary costs of Rs.5,000/- to each of the opposites parties 1 and 2 .
- Consequently, the case of the complainant as is not bonafide and the complainant being not entitled to any of the reliefs sought and on the other hand is liable for exemplary costs of Opposite party 1 and OP No.2, the case of the complainant is dismissed with costs, ordering the complainant to pay Rs.5,000/- each to the opposite party 1 and OP No.2 within a month of the receipt of this order in default the complainant shall be liable to pay the said amount with interest at 9% per annum to the opposite parties form the date of said default till realization.
Dictation to the Stenographer type to dictation corrected by us pronounced in the open Court this the 30th day of August, 2005.
PRESIDENT
MEMBER MEMBER
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant For the opposite parties
-Nil- -Nil-
List of Exhibits Marked for complainant:-
Ex A.1 Original Pass book (Andhra Bank, Budhavarpet Branch, Kurnool)
S.B A/c No. 9020 in the name of account holder Prarthana
Mandiram, C-Camp, Kurnool.
Ex A.2 Original Pass book Andhra Bank, A/c No. 72087, name of A/c holder, Prarthana Mandiram.
Ex A.3 Notice dated 13.11.2004 of the complainant’s counsel to opposite
party No.1 and 2.
Ex A.4 Reply notice dated 9.12.2004 of the opposite party No.2 counsel
to Complainant’s counsel.
Ex A.5 Xerox copy of Guidelines at a Glance.
Ex A.6 Check book continuous two records slips, SB/42 No. 740911 to
74092010 checks A/c No. 72087 in name of Prarthana
Mandiram.
List of Exhibits Marked for the opposite parties:-
Ex B.1 Letter dated 29.7.2004 from Secretary, Prardhana Mandiram C- Camp, Kurnool addressed to opposite party No.1.
Ex B.2 Dated 9.9.2003 from Sri D. Benjamin Franklin, Secretary
addressed to Opposite party No.2.
Ex B.3 By – Laws page No.s 1 to 20.
Ex B.4 Election notification dated 18.8.2003.
Ex B.5 Page No. 101 VII items of meeting dated 8.10.2003.
Ex B.6 Bye – Laws No.18 Bank account Page No. 14.
PRESIDENT
MEMBER MEMBER
Copy to:-
1. Sri G. Nagalakshmi Reddy, Advocate, Kurnool for the complainant
2. Sri A.Ramasubba Reddy, Advocate, Kurnool for the opposite party No.1
3. Sri L. Hari Haranatha Reddy, Advocate, Kurnool for the opposite party No.2.
4. Sri Y. Sreenivasulu, Advocate, Kurnool for the opposite party No.3.
Copy was made ready on:
Copy was dispatched on:
Copy was delivered to parties:
