The Branch Manager,ICICI Bank Ltd., V/S Wahid Pash S/o H. Khaja Hussain, - Consumer Court Case

Karnataka

Raichur

DCFR 12/07

Wahid Pash S/o H. Khaja Hussain, - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager,ICICI Bank Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

T.M.Swamy

29 Aug 2008

ORDER

DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,DC Office Compound, Sath Kacheri
consumer case(CC) No. DCFR 12/07

Wahid Pash S/o H. Khaja Hussain,						...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
Abdul Wahid Khan Major, T.M Khaleel, Managing Partner, The Branch Manager, ICICI Bank Ltd., The Branch Manager, Syndicate Bank, Branch Manager, The Branch Manager,ICICI Bank Ltd.,						...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):

1. T.M.Swamy

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

ORDER

This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of Consumer Protection Act by the complainant- Wahid Pasha against five Respondents- (1) Branch Manager, ICICI Bank Ltd., Bangalore, (2) Abdul Wahid Khan Bangalore, (3) T.M.Khaleel Managing Partner Indo-Shaheen Impex OMPS, Bangalore, (4) Branch Manager Syndicate Bank Branch Manager Manvi, and (5) Branch Manager ICICI Bank Ltd., Branch at Raichur for deficiency of service. The brief facts of the complaint are as under: The complainant is a Civil Contractor he approached Respondent NO-3 T.M. Khaleel who was Managing Partner of Indo- Shaheen Impex which is Overseas Man Power Suppliers Consultants Agency, for employment at overseas for which Respondent No-3 asked the complainant a sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards their service charges in his name. Accordingly the complainant purchased a Demand Draft bearing NO. 399405 for Rs. 10,000/- on 29-01-04 from Syndicate Bank Branch Manvi (Respondent No-4) payable in the name of Respondent No-3 at Bangalore and the same has been sent to Respondent NO-3s earlier address. Thereafter it is learnt that the said Demand Draft has not been realized by Respondent NO-3 but the Respondent No-2 Abdul Wahid Khan has stealthily, dishonestly, mischievously realized the same at Respondent NO-1 Bank- ICICI Bank, Bangalore. The Respondent No-1 Bank knowing fully well that the said DD was drawn in the name of Respondent No-3 T.M.Khaleel but carelessly and negligently without verifying, has credited the said DD in the account of Respondent No-2, as such the Respondent NO-1 Bank has committed deficiency in service. The complainant after coming to know that the said DD has not been credited to the account of Respondent NO-3, made several requests and enquiries personally and through Respondent No-4 Bank, with regard to the realization of the proceeds of the said Demand Draft. But Respondent No-4 have not responded for the same. The complainant has also made a complaint before the Commissioner of Police Public Grievance Division, Infantry Road, Bangalore and also to the Sub-Inspector of Police RT Nagar PS and Ashok Nagar PS Bangalore in this regard. On the enquiry by the police, Respondent No-1 Bank has informed vide letter dt. 19-05-06 that the said Demand Draft has been credited to the account of Respondent No-2. This fact clearly shows that the Respondent No.1 has committed deficiency in service in-collusion with Respondent No. 2 & 3. Respondent No-3 is also not co-operating with this complaint. The complainant issued a notice dt. 04-12-06 to Respondent No-3 calling upon him why the said Demand Draft amount has been credited to the account of Respondent NO-2 Abdul Wahid Khan and whether the Respondent No-3 has realized the said DD amount and why the realization of the DD was not informed to the complainant and also job opportunity as promised by Respondent No-3. In-response to service of said notice Respondent No-3 has not at all replied and thus Respondent No-3 has failed to discharge his duties and liability. The complainant has also issued legal notice dt. 17-06-06 to Respondent No-1 & 2 through RPAD which is same has been served on them but in-spite of service of notice they have not cared to reply to the said notice. From the date of issue of Demand Draft in-favour of Respondent No-3 is continuously by going to Bangalore the Respondent No-1 to 3 have deliberately evaded to furnish the clear picture of the transaction as such the complainant incurred/sustained huge expenses and sustained mental torture and agony. Hence for all these reasons the complainant has sought for Rs. Three Lakh towards damages for loss of job opportunity, Rs. 25,000/- towards mental torture & agony, Rs. 10,000/- Personal expenses & other miscellaneous charges and Rs. 3,000/- towards loss of interest on DD amount totaling to Rs. 3,38,000/- and for return of DD amount of Rs. 10,000/-. 2. In-response to service of notice Respondent No- 1 & 3 remained absent when called out on 19-11-06 so they been placed Ex-parte. Respondent NO-2, 4, & 5 appeared through their respective counsel. The counsel for Respondent NO-2 filed written version along with (3) documents as per list. The written version of Respondent No-2 reads as under: This Respondent NO-2 is stranger and unknown to the complainant. It is in-correct that the Respondent No-3 is Managing Partner of Indo Shaheen Impex. Indo Shaheen Impex is a Proprietorship concern and not a partnership firm, Respondent No-2 is the Proprietor doing the business of tours, travels and export licenced vide registration No. B.31/98/VS/79/2003/04 dt. 12-08-03 which is produced as Document. NO.-1. This Respondent NO-2 has obtained certificate from Government of India, Proprietor General of Emigrants, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi vide certificate No. 4113/KAR/PER/2F/300/6431/2003 dt. 03-07-04 copy of which is produced as Document NO. 2. A Deed of Bank Guarantee for Rs. Three Lakhs vide Bank Guarantee No. 3/2004 for the period from 15-05-04 to 14-11-2010. The copy of which is produced as Document NO.-3. The Respondent NO-2 is not aware of the transaction, communications, contract made between the complainant and Respondent No-3. Respondent No-2 never asked Rs. 10,000/- as stated in the complaint as service charges. The said DD No. 399405 dt. 29-01-05 for Rs. 10,000/- purchased from Respondent NO-4 payable at Respondent NO-1 ICICI Bank favouring Respondent No-3, is not at all received by this Respondent NO-2 but it was received by Respondent NO-3 only. Respondent No-2 is a stranger to contractual obligations between the complainant and Respondent No-3. The actual facts are that Respondent N-3 was a debtor and took a hand loan of Rs. 10,000/- from this Respondent NO-2 to meet his domestic financial needs which was not repaid by him within the stipulated period of (6) months. After repeated requests, several personal visits the Respondent NO-3 who impersonated himself as Managing Partner of Indo Shaheen Impex mis-represented with fraudulent intention cheated the complainant and received the above referred Demand Draft from the complainant and credited the proceeds of said Demand Draft into the account of this Respondent NO-2 as full and final settlement of hand loan from Respondent NO-2. The allegations made against Respondent No-2 is defamatory in nature. The contents of Para- 4 , 5, 6, are denied. Respondent NO-3 with malafide intention a signature the Respondent No-2 malicious intention forged the signature of Respondent No-2 with the help of pilfered letter and submitted the said Demand Draft with Respondent NO-1. The said Demand Draft was credited into the account of Respondent No-2 accordingly. Respondent No-2 with good faith and bonafide intention believed that the proceeds of Demand Draft credited into his account is a repayment made by Respondent NO-3. This Respondent No-2 never entered into any contractual obligations with complainant and complainant is unknown to him. So he is not responsible for any reason mental agony torture caused to the complainant. Para-7 & 8 9, 10 are denied. This Forum is not having jurisdiction with respect to Respondent NO-2 case according to Section 11 (2) (a), (b), (c), of the C.P. Act. Hence for all these reasons he has sought for dismissal of the complaint with cost. 3. The Respondent No-4 has filed written version denying the claim of the complainant that the allegations made against Respondent No-4 are all false and baseless and have been made with malafide intention to cause harassment and mental torture. As the Respondent No-4 has issued DD on the demand of the complainant therefore the question of this Respondent No-4 is necessary party does not arise at all. 4. Respondent No-5 who took sufficient time for filing written version but failed to file written version. On 25-03-08 the LC for Respondent No-5 filed memo of Retirement by enclosing notice of retirement to Respondent No-5 with postal acknowledgement. On perusal of Retirement notice having been duly served on Respondent No-5 vide postal acknowledgement it was accepted and Respondent No-5 remained absent when called out. So Respondent No-5 has been placed Ex-parte. Thereafter when this case set-down for final hearing at that juncture on 20-05-08 Sri. S.K. Kayakmath Advocate filed power for Respondent No-5 with application for setting aside Ex-parte Order. On the No Objection submitted counsel for complainant, the application was allowed and Ex-parte Order came to be set-aside and the vakalatnama of Sri. S.K. Kayakmath was accepted for Respondent No-5. But strangely enough in-spite of granting sufficient time for filing written version of Respondent No-5, he remained absent throughout and not filed the written version so it was taken as No written version by Respondent No-5. 5. During the course of enquiry the complainant has filed his sworn-affidavit by way of examination-in-chief and got marked (16) documents at Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-16. In-rebuttal the Respondent No-4 has filed sworn-affidavit of Branch Manager Syndicate Bank Branch Manvi but Respondent No-4 has not produced any documents to be marked. Except the written version the Respondent NO-2 has not adduced his evidence. However the three documents filed by Respondent NO-2 along with his written version, have been marked as Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-3 for Respondent No-2. 6. Heard the arguments of both sides and perused the records. The following points arise for our consideration and determination: 1.Whether the complainant proves deficiency of service by the respective Respondents, as alleged. 2.Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought for. 7. Our finding on the above points are as under:- 1. In the affirmative against Respondent No- 1 to 3. 2. As per final order for the following REASONS POINT NO.1:- 8. The case of the complainant is that the complainant being a Civil Contractor approached Respondent NO-3 (T.M.Khaleel) who was Managing Partner of Indo Shaheen Impex which is Overseas Man Power Suppliers Consultants Agency for employment at Overseas and for which Respondent No-3 asked him Rs. 10,000/- towards their service charges. Accordingly the complainant purchased a Demand Draft for Rs. 10,000/- bearing No. 399405 dt. 29-01-04 from Respondent No-4- (Syndicate Bank Branch Manvi) payable at Bangalore in the name of Respondent No-3 and sent the same to the Respondent No-3. It is also his case that thereafter he learnt that the Demand Draft has been realized by Respondent NO-2 (Abdul Wahid Khan) instead of Respondent No-3, stealthily, dishonestly, mischievously at the Respondent NO-1 Bank-(ICICI-Bank Bangalore). The Respondent No-1 Bank knowing fully well that the said Demand Draft is drawn in the name of Respondent No-3 but carelessly, negligently and without verifying, has credited the same in the account of Respondent NO-2. Several requests and personal enquiries went in vain. Thereafter he made a complaint before the Commissioner of Police, Public Grievance Division, Infantry Road, Bangalore and also to the Sub-Inspector of Police R.T. Nagar P.S. and Ashok Nagar P.S. Bangalore. On enquiry by the police Respondent NO-1-ICICI Bank has informed through letter dt. 19-05-06 to the police that the Demand Draft has been credited to the account of Respondent NO-2. Thereafter complainant issued a notice dt. 04-12-06 to Respondent NO-3 calling upon him why the Demand Draft amount has been credited into the account of Respondent NO-2 and why it was not informed to him and also for job opportunity as promised by him. He also issued Legal Notice dt. 17-06-06 to Respondent No- 1 & 2 through RPAD. In-spite of service of notice the Respondent No- 1 to 3 have not at all replied to his said notice. Respondent No- 1 to 3 by colluding with each other have duped him and failed to discharge their duties and liability. He sustained mental torture and agony and visited his valuable time due to negligence act of Respondent NO-1 to 3. Hence there is deficiency of service on the part of the Respondents and therefore he has sought for compensation. 9. Respondent No-1 ICICI-Bank Bangaloe and Respondent No-3 (T.M.Khaleel) Managing Partner Indo Shaheen Impex have remained absent and placed Ex-parte. 10. Respondent No-2 Abdul Wahid Khan who has appeared through counsel has filed written version. In Para-1 he has denied that Respondent NO-3 is Managing Partner of Indo Shaheen Impex. Indo Shaheen Impex is a Proprietorship concern and not a partnership firm and that he is the Proprietor doing the business of tours, travel and export under due Licence and Certificate from the Government of India and under Deed of Bank Guarantee for Rs. Three Lakhs by enclosing copies. He Further contended that he is not aware of the transactions, communications, contracts made between the complainant and Respondent No-3 and he never asked Rs. 10,000/- to the complainant as service charges. The Demand Draft sent by the complainant payable at Respondent NO-1 in favour of Respondent NO-3, is not at all received by him but it has been received by Respondent NO-3 only. According to him the Respondent NO-3 was a debtor and had taken a hand loan of Rs. 10,000/- from him to meet his domestic and financial needs which was not repaid by Respondent No-3 within a stipulated period of (6) months. After repeated requests and several personal visits, Respondent NO-3 who impersonated himself as Managing Partner of Indo Shaheen Impex mis-represented with fraudulent intention, cheated the complainant and received the said Demand Draft from the complainant and credited the proceed of the Demand Draft into the account of this Respondent NO-2 as full and final settlement of hand loan availed from this Respondent. 11. Respondent NO-4 Syndicate Bank Branch Manvi in the written version has contended that it has issued Demand Draft as sought for by the complainant and this Respondent No-4 is not a necessary party. 12. The complainant has produced (14) documents at Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-14. Out of which Ex.P-1 is the Photo Stat copy of Demand Draft No. 399405 dt. 29-01-04 drawn in favour of (Respondent NO-3) T.M.Khaleel (MP) Indo Shaheen Impex payable at Syndicate Bank Bangalore. Ex.P-1(1) is the Photo Stat copy of postal receipt for having sent the said Demand Draft to Respondent NO-3. Ex.P-2 is the Photo Stat copy of letter dt. 19-12-04 addressed to Chief Manager CAO Bangalore by Syndicate Bank Branch Manvi asking to furnish the details regarding en-cashment such as name & Branch of Bank who en-cashed since the payee is claiming that he has not received the amount. Ex.P-3 is the Photo Stat Copy of complaint dt. 18-12-05 given by the complainant to the RT Nagar PS in the matter. Ex.P-4 is the Photo Stat copy of letter of complainant addressed to Respondent NO-1 ICICI-Bank stating among other things that the Demand Draft in favour of T.M.Khaleel (MP) Indo Shaheen Impex having been wrongly credit to the account of Abdul Wahid Khan (Respondent No-2) and has sought for return of the amount. Ex.P-5 is the Photo Stat copy of endorsement of acknowledgement of complaint filed by the complainant to the Police Commissioner Infantry Road, Bangalore. Ex.P-6 is the Photo Stat copy of leter dt. 17-02-06 addressed to Police Commissioner Bangalore. Ex.P-7 is the Photo Stat copy of complaint addressed to Sub-Inspector of police Ashok Nagar Bangalore. Ex.P-8 is the Photo Stat copy of the letter dt. 20-04-06 addressed to ICICI-Bank Bangalore by Syndicate Bank Branch Manvi. Ex.P-9 is the Photo Stat copy of letter written by Ashok Nagar P.S. to ICICI-Bank Bangalore (Respondent No-1). Ex.P-10 is the letter of ICICI-Bank (Respondent No-1) addressed to Police Inspector Ashok Nagar P.S. Bangalore. This letter among other things go to show that the Demand Draft in-question has been credited into the account number in the name of Indo Shaheen Impex, Proprietor M/s. Abdul Wahid Khan on 05-02-06 which is held at ICICI-Bank Nariman Point Branch, Mumbai. Ex.P-11 is the Photo Stat copy of legal notice dt. 17-06-06 issued to Respondent NO- 1 & 2. Ex.P-12 (1) to Ex.P-12(3) are the Photo Stat copy of postal receipts. Ex.P-13 is the Photo Stat copy of postal acknowledgement of Respondent No-1. Ex.P-14 is the office copy of legal notice addressed to Respondent No-3. Ex.P-14(1) is the Photo Stat copy of postal acknowledgement of service of notice to Respondent NO-3. Ex.P-15 is the True Copy of Pass Port standing in the name of complainant. Ex.P-16 is the Visiting Card of Respondent No-3 T.M.Khaleel. 13. As stated above three documents have been got marked for Respondent No-2 namely EX.R-1 is the Registration Certificate of establishment issued by Government of Karnataka Department of Labour showing the name of establishment as in Indo Shaheen Impex Bangalore and name of the employer as Sri. Ashok Nagar (Respondent No-2) and the nature of business as Tour & Travel Export. Postal address of the establishment is shown as Indo Shaheen Impex No. 19/3 & 4, 1st Floor Opp: Navodaya School, Dinnur Main Road, RT Nagar Bangalore-32 and it was registered on 12-08-03 and his valid upto 31-12-07. Ex.R-2 is the Certificate from Government of India (Ministry of Labour) issued U/s. 10(2) of the Emigrants Act 1983 to commence or carry on the business of recruitment for development of Indian Workers with foreign employers. Ex.R-3 is the Deed of Bank Guarantee for Rs. Three Lakh vide Bank Guarantee No. 3/2004 for the period from 15-05-05 to 14-12-2010. From the written statement of Respondent NO-2 Abdul Wahid Khan one thing is clear that the Demand Draft sent by the complainant has been credited into the account of Respondent NO-2. Besides, Ex.P-10 produced by the complainant go to show that the ICICI-Bank- Respondent No-1 dt. 20-05-06 has addressed a letter to Police Inspector Ashok Nagar PS Bangalore stating that the Demand Draft dt. 29-01-04 issued by Syndicate Bank has been credited into the account No. 000405012510 in the name of Indo Shaheen Impex, Proprietor Abdul Wahid Khan on 05-02-06 held at ICICI-Bank Nariman Point Branch, Mumbai. 14. The Respondent No-2 in his written version in Para-3 has stated that the Respondent No-3 T.M.Khaleel had taken a hand loan of Rs. 10,000/- which he could not repay within a period of (6) months and after repeated requests and personal visits, Respondent No-3 who impersonated himself as Managing Partner of Indo Shaheen Impex mis-represented with fraudulent intention and cheated the complainant by receiving the above said Demand Draft from the complainant and credited the proceeds of the said Demand Draft into the account of this Respondent No-2 as full and final settlement of hand loan availed from Respondent No-2. Except this bare statement, the Respondent No-2 has not substantiated by any material particulars. But these averments makes it clear regarding dealing with between Respondent No-2 & 3. It would be more so when Ex.P-16 the Visiting Card of Respondent NO-3 go to show Respondent No-3 T.M.Khaleel as Managing Partner Indo Shaheen Impex (Overseas Man Power Consultants Agency). This visiting card also shows the address of the establishment as Indo Shaheen Impex 19/3&4 1st Floor Opp. Navodaya School, Dinur R.T. Nagar Bangalore and Telephone No 51244102/4123/4155 Fax No. 51244166 Phone 23430493 and Mobile No. 9845607598. It also shows E.Mail address. The address of the establishment show in this visiting card is the same as shown in the Certificate produced by Respondent No-2 at Ex.R-1 & Ex.R-2. If the Respondents No-3 T.M.Khaleel had no dealings with Respondent No-2, then there was no occasion for getting such visiting card showing the business address of Respondent NO-2. In Para-3 of his written version even though the Respondent No-2 has contended that the Respondent No-3 impersonated himself as Managing Partner of Indo Shaheen Impex mis-represented with fraudulent intention and cheated the complainant. But there is absolutely nothing on record to show that this Respondent No-2 has taken any legal action against Respondent No-3 for impersonation as Managing Partner of his business concern (Indo Shaheen Impex). As discussed above the Xerox copy of Demand Draft produced at Ex.P-1 amply shows that it was issued in favour of T.M.Khaleel the Respondent No-3 showing him as Managing Partner Indo Shaheen Impex. When the Demand Draft showing Respondent NO-3 T.M.Khaleel as the payee of the Demand Draft we failed to understand as to how this Demand Draft was credited into the account of Indo Shaheen Impex held by Respondent No-2 as its proprietor, as rightly argued by the L.C. for the complainant. So the contention of the complainant that there is deficiency of service even on the part of Respondent No-1 ICICI-Bank cannot be brushed aside. Hence from the combined discussion and from the evidence on record it amply go to show deficiency in service on the part of Respondent NO- 1 to 3. Therefore we hold that the complainant has proved deficiency in service by the Respondent No- 1 to 3. Hence Point No-1 is answered in the affirmative. POINT NO.2:- 15. The complainant has sought for return of Demand Draft amount of Rs. 10,000/- along with Rs. Three Lakh towards damages for loss of job opportunity, Rs. 25,000/- towards mental torture and agony, Rs. 10,000/- towards expenses and other miscellaneous charges and Rs. 3,000/- towards loss of interest on D.D. amount totaling to Rs. 3,48,000/- from the Respondent jointly and severally. In-view of our finding on Point No-1 holding deficiency in service by Respondents 1 to 3. So Respondent No- 1 to 3 jointly and severally are liable for refund of DD amount of Rs. 10,000/-. So far as the claim for Rs. 3,38,000/- towards compensation under different heads is concerned, the complainant has not specifically proved any contract or agreement between him and Respondent No-3 for a specific post in abroad and he has not produced any agreement taken place between him and the Respondent NO-3. As contended by the Respondent No-2, the Respondent No-3 has no concern and he is not a Managing Partner of Indo Shaheen Impex which is a proprietorship concern run by Respondent No-2 as revealed from Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-3. Hence it follows that the complainant has not proved his claim of Rs. Three Lakh towards damages for loss of job opportunity. So far as the other part of claim i.e, Rs. 38,000/- towards mental torture and agony personal expenses and loss of interest on DD amount is concerned, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case as discussed in Point NO-1, we feel it just and proper to award Rs. 35,000/- as global compensation including cost of litigation. In this view of the matter we pass the following order: ORDER The complaint of the complainant is allowed in part only against Respondent No- 1 to 3. The Respondent No- 1 to 3 jointly and severally shall pay refund the DD amount of Rs. 10,000/- and to pay a global compensation of Rs. 35,000/- to the complainant. The Respondent No- 1 to 3 shall comply this order within a period of (6) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The complaint against Respondent No- 4 & 5 is dismissed. Office to furnish certified copy of this order to the respective parties forth with free of cost. (Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 29-08-08) Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- Smt.Pratibha Rani Hiremath, Sri. Gururaj Sri. N.H. Savalagi, Member. Member. President, Dist.Forum-Raichur. Dist-Forum-Raichur Dist-Forum-Raichur.

This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of Consumer Protection Act by the complainant- Wahid Pasha against five Respondents- (1) Branch Manager, ICICI Bank Ltd., Bangalore, (2) Abdul Wahid Khan Bangalore, (3) T.M.Khaleel Managing Partner Indo-Shaheen Impex OMPS, Bangalore, (4) Branch Manager Syndicate Bank Branch Manager Manvi, and (5) Branch Manager ICICI Bank Ltd., Branch at Raichur for deficiency of service. The brief facts of the complaint are as under: The complainant is a Civil Contractor he approached Respondent NO-3 T.M. Khaleel who was Managing Partner of Indo- Shaheen Impex which is Overseas Man Power Suppliers Consultants Agency, for employment at overseas for which Respondent No-3 asked the complainant a sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards their service charges in his name. Accordingly the complainant purchased a Demand Draft bearing NO. 399405 for Rs. 10,000/- on 29-01-04 from Syndicate Bank Branch Manvi (Respondent No-4) payable in the name of Respondent No-3 at Bangalore and the same has been sent to Respondent NO-3s earlier address. Thereafter it is learnt that the said Demand Draft has not been realized by Respondent NO-3 but the Respondent No-2 Abdul Wahid Khan has stealthily, dishonestly, mischievously realized the same at Respondent NO-1 Bank- ICICI Bank, Bangalore. The Respondent No-1 Bank knowing fully well that the said DD was drawn in the name of Respondent No-3 T.M.Khaleel but carelessly and negligently without verifying, has credited the said DD in the account of Respondent No-2, as such the Respondent NO-1 Bank has committed deficiency in service. The complainant after coming to know that the said DD has not been credited to the account of Respondent NO-3, made several requests and enquiries personally and through Respondent No-4 Bank, with regard to the realization of the proceeds of the said Demand Draft. But Respondent No-4 have not responded for the same. The complainant has also made a complaint before the Commissioner of Police Public Grievance Division, Infantry Road, Bangalore and also to the Sub-Inspector of Police RT Nagar PS and Ashok Nagar PS Bangalore in this regard. On the enquiry by the police, Respondent No-1 Bank has informed vide letter dt. 19-05-06 that the said Demand Draft has been credited to the account of Respondent No-2. This fact clearly shows that the Respondent No.1 has committed deficiency in service in-collusion with Respondent No. 2 & 3. Respondent No-3 is also not co-operating with this complaint. The complainant issued a notice dt. 04-12-06 to Respondent No-3 calling upon him why the said Demand Draft amount has been credited to the account of Respondent NO-2 Abdul Wahid Khan and whether the Respondent No-3 has realized the said DD amount and why the realization of the DD was not informed to the complainant and also job opportunity as promised by Respondent No-3. In-response to service of said notice Respondent No-3 has not at all replied and thus Respondent No-3 has failed to discharge his duties and liability. The complainant has also issued legal notice dt. 17-06-06 to Respondent No-1 & 2 through RPAD which is same has been served on them but in-spite of service of notice they have not cared to reply to the said notice. From the date of issue of Demand Draft in-favour of Respondent No-3 is continuously by going to Bangalore the Respondent No-1 to 3 have deliberately evaded to furnish the clear picture of the transaction as such the complainant incurred/sustained huge expenses and sustained mental torture and agony. Hence for all these reasons the complainant has sought for Rs. Three Lakh towards damages for loss of job opportunity, Rs. 25,000/- towards mental torture & agony, Rs. 10,000/- Personal expenses & other miscellaneous charges and Rs. 3,000/- towards loss of interest on DD amount totaling to Rs. 3,38,000/- and for return of DD amount of Rs. 10,000/-. 2. In-response to service of notice Respondent No- 1 & 3 remained absent when called out on 19-11-06 so they been placed Ex-parte. Respondent NO-2, 4, & 5 appeared through their respective counsel. The counsel for Respondent NO-2 filed written version along with (3) documents as per list. The written version of Respondent No-2 reads as under: This Respondent NO-2 is stranger and unknown to the complainant. It is in-correct that the Respondent No-3 is Managing Partner of Indo Shaheen Impex. Indo Shaheen Impex is a Proprietorship concern and not a partnership firm, Respondent No-2 is the Proprietor doing the business of tours, travels and export licenced vide registration No. B.31/98/VS/79/2003/04 dt. 12-08-03 which is produced as Document. NO.-1. This Respondent NO-2 has obtained certificate from Government of India, Proprietor General of Emigrants, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi vide certificate No. 4113/KAR/PER/2F/300/6431/2003 dt. 03-07-04 copy of which is produced as Document NO. 2. A Deed of Bank Guarantee for Rs. Three Lakhs vide Bank Guarantee No. 3/2004 for the period from 15-05-04 to 14-11-2010. The copy of which is produced as Document NO.-3. The Respondent NO-2 is not aware of the transaction, communications, contract made between the complainant and Respondent No-3. Respondent No-2 never asked Rs. 10,000/- as stated in the complaint as service charges. The said DD No. 399405 dt. 29-01-05 for Rs. 10,000/- purchased from Respondent NO-4 payable at Respondent NO-1 ICICI Bank favouring Respondent No-3, is not at all received by this Respondent NO-2 but it was received by Respondent NO-3 only. Respondent No-2 is a stranger to contractual obligations between the complainant and Respondent No-3. The actual facts are that Respondent N-3 was a debtor and took a hand loan of Rs. 10,000/- from this Respondent NO-2 to meet his domestic financial needs which was not repaid by him within the stipulated period of (6) months. After repeated requests, several personal visits the Respondent NO-3 who impersonated himself as Managing Partner of Indo Shaheen Impex mis-represented with fraudulent intention cheated the complainant and received the above referred Demand Draft from the complainant and credited the proceeds of said Demand Draft into the account of this Respondent NO-2 as full and final settlement of hand loan from Respondent NO-2. The allegations made against Respondent No-2 is defamatory in nature. The contents of Para- 4 , 5, 6, are denied. Respondent NO-3 with malafide intention a signature the Respondent No-2 malicious intention forged the signature of Respondent No-2 with the help of pilfered letter and submitted the said Demand Draft with Respondent NO-1. The said Demand Draft was credited into the account of Respondent No-2 accordingly. Respondent No-2 with good faith and bonafide intention believed that the proceeds of Demand Draft credited into his account is a repayment made by Respondent NO-3. This Respondent No-2 never entered into any contractual obligations with complainant and complainant is unknown to him. So he is not responsible for any reason mental agony torture caused to the complainant. Para-7 & 8 9, 10 are denied. This Forum is not having jurisdiction with respect to Respondent NO-2 case according to Section 11 (2) (a), (b), (c), of the C.P. Act. Hence for all these reasons he has sought for dismissal of the complaint with cost. 3. The Respondent No-4 has filed written version denying the claim of the complainant that the allegations made against Respondent No-4 are all false and baseless and have been made with malafide intention to cause harassment and mental torture. As the Respondent No-4 has issued DD on the demand of the complainant therefore the question of this Respondent No-4 is necessary party does not arise at all. 4. Respondent No-5 who took sufficient time for filing written version but failed to file written version. On 25-03-08 the LC for Respondent No-5 filed memo of Retirement by enclosing notice of retirement to Respondent No-5 with postal acknowledgement. On perusal of Retirement notice having been duly served on Respondent No-5 vide postal acknowledgement it was accepted and Respondent No-5 remained absent when called out. So Respondent No-5 has been placed Ex-parte. Thereafter when this case set-down for final hearing at that juncture on 20-05-08 Sri. S.K. Kayakmath Advocate filed power for Respondent No-5 with application for setting aside Ex-parte Order. On the No Objection submitted counsel for complainant, the application was allowed and Ex-parte Order came to be set-aside and the vakalatnama of Sri. S.K. Kayakmath was accepted for Respondent No-5. But strangely enough in-spite of granting sufficient time for filing written version of Respondent No-5, he remained absent throughout and not filed the written version so it was taken as No written version by Respondent No-5. 5. During the course of enquiry the complainant has filed his sworn-affidavit by way of examination-in-chief and got marked (16) documents at Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-16. In-rebuttal the Respondent No-4 has filed sworn-affidavit of Branch Manager Syndicate Bank Branch Manvi but Respondent No-4 has not produced any documents to be marked. Except the written version the Respondent NO-2 has not adduced his evidence. However the three documents filed by Respondent NO-2 along with his written version, have been marked as Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-3 for Respondent No-2. 6. Heard the arguments of both sides and perused the records. The following points arise for our consideration and determination: 1.Whether the complainant proves deficiency of service by the respective Respondents, as alleged. 2.Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought for. 7. Our finding on the above points are as under:- 1. In the affirmative against Respondent No- 1 to 3. 2. As per final order for the following REASONS POINT NO.1:- 8. The case of the complainant is that the complainant being a Civil Contractor approached Respondent NO-3 (T.M.Khaleel) who was Managing Partner of Indo Shaheen Impex which is Overseas Man Power Suppliers Consultants Agency for employment at Overseas and for which Respondent No-3 asked him Rs. 10,000/- towards their service charges. Accordingly the complainant purchased a Demand Draft for Rs. 10,000/- bearing No. 399405 dt. 29-01-04 from Respondent No-4- (Syndicate Bank Branch Manvi) payable at Bangalore in the name of Respondent No-3 and sent the same to the Respondent No-3. It is also his case that thereafter he learnt that the Demand Draft has been realized by Respondent NO-2 (Abdul Wahid Khan) instead of Respondent No-3, stealthily, dishonestly, mischievously at the Respondent NO-1 Bank-(ICICI-Bank Bangalore). The Respondent No-1 Bank knowing fully well that the said Demand Draft is drawn in the name of Respondent No-3 but carelessly, negligently and without verifying, has credited the same in the account of Respondent NO-2. Several requests and personal enquiries went in vain. Thereafter he made a complaint before the Commissioner of Police, Public Grievance Division, Infantry Road, Bangalore and also to the Sub-Inspector of Police R.T. Nagar P.S. and Ashok Nagar P.S. Bangalore. On enquiry by the police Respondent NO-1-ICICI Bank has informed through letter dt. 19-05-06 to the police that the Demand Draft has been credited to the account of Respondent NO-2. Thereafter complainant issued a notice dt. 04-12-06 to Respondent NO-3 calling upon him why the Demand Draft amount has been credited into the account of Respondent NO-2 and why it was not informed to him and also for job opportunity as promised by him. He also issued Legal Notice dt. 17-06-06 to Respondent No- 1 & 2 through RPAD. In-spite of service of notice the Respondent No- 1 to 3 have not at all replied to his said notice. Respondent No- 1 to 3 by colluding with each other have duped him and failed to discharge their duties and liability. He sustained mental torture and agony and visited his valuable time due to negligence act of Respondent NO-1 to 3. Hence there is deficiency of service on the part of the Respondents and therefore he has sought for compensation. 9. Respondent No-1 ICICI-Bank Bangaloe and Respondent No-3 (T.M.Khaleel) Managing Partner Indo Shaheen Impex have remained absent and placed Ex-parte. 10. Respondent No-2 Abdul Wahid Khan who has appeared through counsel has filed written version. In Para-1 he has denied that Respondent NO-3 is Managing Partner of Indo Shaheen Impex. Indo Shaheen Impex is a Proprietorship concern and not a partnership firm and that he is the Proprietor doing the business of tours, travel and export under due Licence and Certificate from the Government of India and under Deed of Bank Guarantee for Rs. Three Lakhs by enclosing copies. He Further contended that he is not aware of the transactions, communications, contracts made between the complainant and Respondent No-3 and he never asked Rs. 10,000/- to the complainant as service charges. The Demand Draft sent by the complainant payable at Respondent NO-1 in favour of Respondent NO-3, is not at all received by him but it has been received by Respondent NO-3 only. According to him the Respondent NO-3 was a debtor and had taken a hand loan of Rs. 10,000/- from him to meet his domestic and financial needs which was not repaid by Respondent No-3 within a stipulated period of (6) months. After repeated requests and several personal visits, Respondent NO-3 who impersonated himself as Managing Partner of Indo Shaheen Impex mis-represented with fraudulent intention, cheated the complainant and received the said Demand Draft from the complainant and credited the proceed of the Demand Draft into the account of this Respondent NO-2 as full and final settlement of hand loan availed from this Respondent. 11. Respondent NO-4 Syndicate Bank Branch Manvi in the written version has contended that it has issued Demand Draft as sought for by the complainant and this Respondent No-4 is not a necessary party. 12. The complainant has produced (14) documents at Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-14. Out of which Ex.P-1 is the Photo Stat copy of Demand Draft No. 399405 dt. 29-01-04 drawn in favour of (Respondent NO-3) T.M.Khaleel (MP) Indo Shaheen Impex payable at Syndicate Bank Bangalore. Ex.P-1(1) is the Photo Stat copy of postal receipt for having sent the said Demand Draft to Respondent NO-3. Ex.P-2 is the Photo Stat copy of letter dt. 19-12-04 addressed to Chief Manager CAO Bangalore by Syndicate Bank Branch Manvi asking to furnish the details regarding en-cashment such as name & Branch of Bank who en-cashed since the payee is claiming that he has not received the amount. Ex.P-3 is the Photo Stat Copy of complaint dt. 18-12-05 given by the complainant to the RT Nagar PS in the matter. Ex.P-4 is the Photo Stat copy of letter of complainant addressed to Respondent NO-1 ICICI-Bank stating among other things that the Demand Draft in favour of T.M.Khaleel (MP) Indo Shaheen Impex having been wrongly credit to the account of Abdul Wahid Khan (Respondent No-2) and has sought for return of the amount. Ex.P-5 is the Photo Stat copy of endorsement of acknowledgement of complaint filed by the complainant to the Police Commissioner Infantry Road, Bangalore. Ex.P-6 is the Photo Stat copy of leter dt. 17-02-06 addressed to Police Commissioner Bangalore. Ex.P-7 is the Photo Stat copy of complaint addressed to Sub-Inspector of police Ashok Nagar Bangalore. Ex.P-8 is the Photo Stat copy of the letter dt. 20-04-06 addressed to ICICI-Bank Bangalore by Syndicate Bank Branch Manvi. Ex.P-9 is the Photo Stat copy of letter written by Ashok Nagar P.S. to ICICI-Bank Bangalore (Respondent No-1). Ex.P-10 is the letter of ICICI-Bank (Respondent No-1) addressed to Police Inspector Ashok Nagar P.S. Bangalore. This letter among other things go to show that the Demand Draft in-question has been credited into the account number in the name of Indo Shaheen Impex, Proprietor M/s. Abdul Wahid Khan on 05-02-06 which is held at ICICI-Bank Nariman Point Branch, Mumbai. Ex.P-11 is the Photo Stat copy of legal notice dt. 17-06-06 issued to Respondent NO- 1 & 2. Ex.P-12 (1) to Ex.P-12(3) are the Photo Stat copy of postal receipts. Ex.P-13 is the Photo Stat copy of postal acknowledgement of Respondent No-1. Ex.P-14 is the office copy of legal notice addressed to Respondent No-3. Ex.P-14(1) is the Photo Stat copy of postal acknowledgement of service of notice to Respondent NO-3. Ex.P-15 is the True Copy of Pass Port standing in the name of complainant. Ex.P-16 is the Visiting Card of Respondent No-3 T.M.Khaleel. 13. As stated above three documents have been got marked for Respondent No-2 namely EX.R-1 is the Registration Certificate of establishment issued by Government of Karnataka Department of Labour showing the name of establishment as in Indo Shaheen Impex Bangalore and name of the employer as Sri. Ashok Nagar (Respondent No-2) and the nature of business as Tour & Travel Export. Postal address of the establishment is shown as Indo Shaheen Impex No. 19/3 & 4, 1st Floor Opp: Navodaya School, Dinnur Main Road, RT Nagar Bangalore-32 and it was registered on 12-08-03 and his valid upto 31-12-07. Ex.R-2 is the Certificate from Government of India (Ministry of Labour) issued U/s. 10(2) of the Emigrants Act 1983 to commence or carry on the business of recruitment for development of Indian Workers with foreign employers. Ex.R-3 is the Deed of Bank Guarantee for Rs. Three Lakh vide Bank Guarantee No. 3/2004 for the period from 15-05-05 to 14-12-2010. From the written statement of Respondent NO-2 Abdul Wahid Khan one thing is clear that the Demand Draft sent by the complainant has been credited into the account of Respondent NO-2. Besides, Ex.P-10 produced by the complainant go to show that the ICICI-Bank- Respondent No-1 dt. 20-05-06 has addressed a letter to Police Inspector Ashok Nagar PS Bangalore stating that the Demand Draft dt. 29-01-04 issued by Syndicate Bank has been credited into the account No. 000405012510 in the name of Indo Shaheen Impex, Proprietor Abdul Wahid Khan on 05-02-06 held at ICICI-Bank Nariman Point Branch, Mumbai. 14. The Respondent No-2 in his written version in Para-3 has stated that the Respondent No-3 T.M.Khaleel had taken a hand loan of Rs. 10,000/- which he could not repay within a period of (6) months and after repeated requests and personal visits, Respondent No-3 who impersonated himself as Managing Partner of Indo Shaheen Impex mis-represented with fraudulent intention and cheated the complainant by receiving the above said Demand Draft from the complainant and credited the proceeds of the said Demand Draft into the account of this Respondent No-2 as full and final settlement of hand loan availed from Respondent No-2. Except this bare statement, the Respondent No-2 has not substantiated by any material particulars. But these averments makes it clear regarding dealing with between Respondent No-2 & 3. It would be more so when Ex.P-16 the Visiting Card of Respondent NO-3 go to show Respondent No-3 T.M.Khaleel as Managing Partner Indo Shaheen Impex (Overseas Man Power Consultants Agency). This visiting card also shows the address of the establishment as Indo Shaheen Impex 19/3&4 1st Floor Opp. Navodaya School, Dinur R.T. Nagar Bangalore and Telephone No 51244102/4123/4155 Fax No. 51244166 Phone 23430493 and Mobile No. 9845607598. It also shows E.Mail address. The address of the establishment show in this visiting card is the same as shown in the Certificate produced by Respondent No-2 at Ex.R-1 & Ex.R-2. If the Respondents No-3 T.M.Khaleel had no dealings with Respondent No-2, then there was no occasion for getting such visiting card showing the business address of Respondent NO-2. In Para-3 of his written version even though the Respondent No-2 has contended that the Respondent No-3 impersonated himself as Managing Partner of Indo Shaheen Impex mis-represented with fraudulent intention and cheated the complainant. But there is absolutely nothing on record to show that this Respondent No-2 has taken any legal action against Respondent No-3 for impersonation as Managing Partner of his business concern (Indo Shaheen Impex). As discussed above the Xerox copy of Demand Draft produced at Ex.P-1 amply shows that it was issued in favour of T.M.Khaleel the Respondent No-3 showing him as Managing Partner Indo Shaheen Impex. When the Demand Draft showing Respondent NO-3 T.M.Khaleel as the payee of the Demand Draft we failed to understand as to how this Demand Draft was credited into the account of Indo Shaheen Impex held by Respondent No-2 as its proprietor, as rightly argued by the L.C. for the complainant. So the contention of the complainant that there is deficiency of service even on the part of Respondent No-1 ICICI-Bank cannot be brushed aside. Hence from the combined discussion and from the evidence on record it amply go to show deficiency in service on the part of Respondent NO- 1 to 3. Therefore we hold that the complainant has proved deficiency in service by the Respondent No- 1 to 3. Hence Point No-1 is answered in the affirmative. POINT NO.2:- 15. The complainant has sought for return of Demand Draft amount of Rs. 10,000/- along with Rs. Three Lakh towards damages for loss of job opportunity, Rs. 25,000/- towards mental torture and agony, Rs. 10,000/- towards expenses and other miscellaneous charges and Rs. 3,000/- towards loss of interest on D.D. amount totaling to Rs. 3,48,000/- from the Respondent jointly and severally. In-view of our finding on Point No-1 holding deficiency in service by Respondents 1 to 3. So Respondent No- 1 to 3 jointly and severally are liable for refund of DD amount of Rs. 10,000/-. So far as the claim for Rs. 3,38,000/- towards compensation under different heads is concerned, the complainant has not specifically proved any contract or agreement between him and Respondent No-3 for a specific post in abroad and he has not produced any agreement taken place between him and the Respondent NO-3. As contended by the Respondent No-2, the Respondent No-3 has no concern and he is not a Managing Partner of Indo Shaheen Impex which is a proprietorship concern run by Respondent No-2 as revealed from Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-3. Hence it follows that the complainant has not proved his claim of Rs. Three Lakh towards damages for loss of job opportunity. So far as the other part of claim i.e, Rs. 38,000/- towards mental torture and agony personal expenses and loss of interest on DD amount is concerned, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case as discussed in Point NO-1, we feel it just and proper to award Rs. 35,000/- as global compensation including cost of litigation. In this view of the matter we pass the following order: ORDER The complaint of the complainant is allowed in part only against Respondent No- 1 to 3. The Respondent No- 1 to 3 jointly and severally shall pay refund the DD amount of Rs. 10,000/- and to pay a global compensation of Rs. 35,000/- to the complainant. The Respondent No- 1 to 3 shall comply this order within a period of (6) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The complaint against Respondent No- 4 & 5 is dismissed. Office to furnish certified copy of this order to the respective parties forth with free of cost. (Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 29-08-08) Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- Smt.Pratibha Rani Hiremath, Sri. Gururaj Sri. N.H. Savalagi, Member. Member. President, Dist.Forum-Raichur. Dist-Forum-Raichur Dist-Forum-Raichur.