BEFORE THE  DIST. CONSUMERS DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM;  DHARWAD.

DATE: 12^th August 2015        

PRESENT:

1) Shri B.H.Shreeharsha  : President

2) Smt.M.Vijayalaxmi       : Member 

Complaint No.: 159/2015

Complaint No.: 160/2015

Complaint No.: 161/2015

Complainant/s:

Om Hegde Uratota, #439, 4^th Main Road, Nagendra Block, Shrinagar, Bangalore 560050.

(In Person)

v/s

Respondent/s:

Senior Branch Manager, Syndicate Bank, Neharu Nagar Branch, Hubli

In CC/159/15

Senior Branch Manager, Syndicate Bank, Vidya Nagar Branch, Hubli

In CC/160/15

Senior Branch Manager, Syndicate Bank, Super Market Nagar Branch, Hubli

In CC/161/15

(By Sri.B.V.Hebbal, Adv.)

O R D E R

By: Shri. B.H.Shreeharsha : President.

1.     Since the complaints are filed by the same complainant against the same respondents bank of different branches and as the reliefs sought are the common, for the convenience all the complaints were clubbed together and disposed in a common judgment.    

2.     The complainant has filed this complaint claiming for a direction to the respondents for total Rs.43,012/-, Rs.43,002/- & Rs.43,002/- respectively in all the 3 cases amounting towards refund of the excess amount received, cost of the proceedings, traveling charges, mental agony and loss & payment towards the consumer welfare fund as damages & to grant such other reliefs.

Brief facts of the case are as under:

3.     The case of the complainant is that, the complainant on different dates & approached different branches of Syndicate Bank and availed services to issue DD payable to his wife Saroja Hegde for the amount, during that time the respondents had collected excess amount against to the scheduled rates towards the commission charges and the details are as follows:

4.     The grievance of the complainant is that though the prescribed commission for range the Rs.1/- to 500/- is Rs.20/- the respondent have collected additional Rs.3/- for service charges & ought to have collect in total Rs.23/- but they have received additional Rs.12/- excess against to the scheduled prescribed commission & have committed deficiency in service amounting to unfair trade practice and have caused harassment, mental agony and financial loss for that the complainant filed the instant complaint praying for the relief as sought with a direction not to commit such unfair trade practice in future.

5.     In response to the notice issued from this Forum the respondents appeared and filed the written version in detail denying and disputing the complaint averments. Further the respondents taken contention that very complaint is false , frivolous, vexatious and not maintainable & prays for dismissal of the complaints. Further the respondents in total denied all the complaint averments in toto & also the allegations made and also the compensation claimed. Further taken contention that though the complainant is permanent resident of Bangalore at given address of cause title and though he is owning SB account of respondent at Sirsi branch, the complainant for the best reasons known to him submits his request for issuance of DD through respondent branches in the name of his own wife in all the cases by fillupping the DD forms in his own hand writing & pattern & remitted the commission amount more than that of the prescribed commission fee against no one staff of respondent branches insist to fill up the same & remit the excess amount at his own whims and fancies & for himself made the cashier to receive the amount & remitted excess DD charges with malafide intention to make grounds for false claim & filed the instant complaint against the respondents as an revenge for the reasons the respondent bank had obtained decree in O.S.45/15 on the file of Civil Judge Sirsi court against the daughter of the complainant. Still the decree amount is in due. Hence the complainant filed the instant false complaint  against the respondent bank with malafide intention. The respondents have not committed any deficiency in service as alleged & also have not committed any unfair trade practice as alleged & prays for dismissal of the complaints.

6.     On the said pleadings the following points have arisen for consideration:

1. Whether complainant has proved that there was deficiency in service on the part of respondents ?
2. Whether complainant is entitled to the relief as claimed ?
3. To what relief the complainant is entitled ?

Both have admits sworn to evidence affidavit, relied on documents. Apart from argument the complainant filed written argument.  Heard. Perused the records.

Finding on points is as under.

1.  Affirmatively
2.  Accordingly 
3.  As per order

Reasons

Points 1 and 2

7.     On going through the pleadings & evidence coupled with documents of both the parties it is evident that there is no dispute with regard to the fact,  that the complainant had applied for DD and in turn the respondent banks have issued DD as per the requisitions.

8.     Now the question to be determined is, whether the respondent banks have collected excess commission than the prescribed charges and have committed deficiency in service, if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled.

9.     Taking into consideration of approach of the complainant with a requisition to issue DD the complainant, for the first time approached the respondent in CC/161/15 on 16.04.2015 with respect to the other 2 cases the complainant approached respondent bank on 24.05.2015. By this it is evident that the complainant came to know of the alleged misconduct on 16.04.2015 itself. In all the 3 cases the complainant had applied for the information under RTI Act to the respondent bank on 07.01.2015. So also the respondent bank had replied to the complainant to his requisition on 19.01.2015 as per Ex-C4. The information sought under RTI Act is prior to approach of the complainant to the respondent banks. By this it is evident that the complainant is well aware of the scheduled commission that will be charged by the respondent bank for different range of DD amount.

10.   By looking into the pleadings and evidence of the complainant nowhere complainant stated no officials have insist or demand to remit the excess amount than the prescribed scheduled commission. It is also the case of the complainant that he only filled up the DD forms and remitted the amount before the concerned counter & in turn the respondent bank branches have issued DD.

11.   The very contention of the complainant that the respondent ought not have received the excess amount rather they would have returned the same but not returned which amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Pro contra the respondents both in their pleadings as well as in evidence admits the excess amount remitted by the complainant but argued contending that no officials have insisted or demands the complainant instead he himself intentionally remitted excess amount as a revenge, otherwise he would not have approached different bank branches & have transacted different transactions with the same amount and draw DD in the name of the same payee i.e. in favour of his wife. Further submits the conduct of the complainant itself shows the act of the revenge against to the decree obtained by the respondent bank at Sirsi branch.

12.   By winding up the allegations & contention of both the parties there arise some suspicion in the mind of the Forum also for the reason if the complainant would have made it with a sole intention to create awareness of consumerization if he would have transacted one transaction it would have served the purpose. But there was no necessitity for complainant to transact & to repeat the same conduct in the different branches of the respondent bank i.e. Syndicate Bank. So also there was no need of applying 3 times for information under RTI Act. If he would have applied once it would have survive the purpose, but he applied for same informations repeatedly which was not required. It is also the contention and argument of the respondent that since the complainant himself at his own whims and fancy remitted the excess DD charges oversightedly at the counter the concerned case worker of respondent in the busy schedules of banking transaction have not noticed the same & accepted the same. But there was no intention, the respondent bank immediately after the complainant brought to the notice of the respondent have refunded the amount without any dispute and second thought as such there does not arise question of deficiency in service or playing unfair trade practice as alleged by the complainant.

13.   At this juncture another factor will flash in the mind of this Forum that in the event the complainant remitted less commission charges than the scheduled charges did the bank would have accepted and issued the DD ? The answer is No. Under those circumstances in the event when the excess amount is paid, why the respondent bank failed to notice the same and refund the amount immediately at the counter. Under those circumstances the argument of the respondent that due to busy schedule of works the bank staff did not noticed the excess amount cannot be acceptable. To this an extent there is deficiency in service on the part of respondent though it was intentional or voluntary attitude of the complainant. But at the same time as discussed supra the complainant need not repeatedly approach the respondent bank at different branches and have applied for DD by remitting excess amount & also there was no need of soughting information 3 times  for the identical matter under RTI Act repeatedly. Hence, the complainant is not entitled for relief in all the cases except for a single act & single transaction as a mark of, the complainant gave public awareness to the respondent bank not to commit such deficiency in service & unfair trade practice in future. If the respondents would have refund the amount in the counter itself it would be different but not done so but refunded after only issuance of notice by the complainant as per Ex.C-5. With an abundant fearness that complainant will approach court of law. Hence the respondent shall held responsible for the consequences.

14.   The complainant is also herewith directed to take notice of the observation made in the orders & to avoid spurious litigations & complaints unnecessarily.

15.  In view of the above discussions we have arrived and proceed to held issue.1 and 2 in affirmative and accordingly.

16.   Point.3: In view of the finding on points 1 and 2 proceeded to pass the following 

Order

        The complaints are allowed in part as a mark of public awareness & directed the respondent to pay in all single payment of Rs.1000/- towards the compensation and Rs.1000/- towards cost of the proceedings in all the 3 cases within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Failing to comply the same, the said amount shall carry interest @9% P.A. from thereon till realization.

        Original order be kept in CC 159/15 & its copy in other connected cases.

(Dictated to steno, transcribed by him and edited by us and pronounced in the open Forum on this day on 12^th day of August 2015)

(Smt.M.Vijayalaxmi)                        (Sri.B.H.Shreeharsha)

Member                                                       President

Dist.Consumer Forum                                 Dist.Consumer Forum

MSR