Date of filing:20.08.2013

                                                                                                Date of Disposal:09.09.2024

BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMR DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU (PRINCIPAL BENCH)

DATED:09^th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2024

PRESENT

Mr. K. B. SANGANNANAVAR: Pri. Dist. & Session Judge (R)- JUDICIAL MEMBER:

Mrs.M.DIVYASHREE : LADY MEMBER

APPEAL NO.1275/2013

O R D E R

BY Mr. K. B. SANGANNANAVAR: Pri. Dist. & Session Judge (R)- JUDICIAL MEMBER:

1. This is an appeal filed by complainant in CC/743/2013 on the file of I Additional DCDRC, Bengaluru, aggrieved by the order dated 19.07.2013.  (The parties to this appeal will be referred as to their rank assigned to them by the District Commission)

2. The Commission examined grounds of appeal, impugned order, appeal papers.

3. Now the point that arise for consideration of the Commission would be:

Whether impugned order dated 19.07.2013 passed in CC/743/2013 does call for an interference of the Commission for the grounds set out in the appeal memo?

4. The Complainant/appellant is a Retired Branch Manager of OP Bank had alleged against OPs that on 31.07.2012 he went to OP2 to pay the tax amount of Rs.19,590/- along with necessary challan and had requested branch manager for issuance of cheque towards the payment of income tax by debiting his account in his name.  However, instead of debiting his account towards the income tax for the assessment year 2011-12 and instead of processing issuance of the cheque, OP had given an endorsement on the challan stating that they are unable to process the request, since PAN Card details are not updated at Bengaluru Branch.  In this regard, he alleges against OPs that 31.07.2012 happens to be the last date for filing returns, had to engage a taxi to reach the Palace Grounds for filing the income tax returns which costs nearly Rs.2,000/- towards expenses.  He alleged, bank had equipped with ECS/CORE Banking system and if at all system is out of order, concerned staff of OP1 bank could have made an alternative arrangement for accepting the challan and also the cheque for the payment of income tax returns for the assessment year 2011-12.  In this regard he  lodged complaint with banking Ombudsman but had given an endorsement stating that Ombudsman is not the proper person for adjudicating such complaints and in such circumstances, complainant constraints to  raised a Consumer Complaint alleging OP had rendered  deficiency in service, had claimed  compensation of Rs.19,590/- , expenses of Rs.2,000/- and Rs.50,000/- towards mental torture.

5. The District Forum on admission of the complaint ordered notice. The OPs have put their appearance through learned counsel; have contested the Consumer Complaint denying the allegation of rendering deficiency of service on their part. 
6. In view of rival contentions of the parties to the complaint, the District Forum held an enquiry, by receiving materials placed on record, held – “complainant being not a layman and he being one of the retired bank manager of the bank by knowing all the technicalities, difficulties when the system gone out of the order and without any base, unnecessarily pull out the OP Bank to the court of law and his act is deplorable one and is liable to pay cost of Rs.2,000/- to the OPs. Accordingly, dismissed the complaint along with cost of Rs.2,000/- payable to OP within 30 days from the date of the order.”  It is this order is assailed in this appeal contending, impugned order suffers from legal infirmities and by such order precedent had been set, no customer to approach the Consumer Forum, alleging deficiency of services on the part of the Banks, since imposed costs of the complainant.  The finding of the District Forum is contrary to facts and law is liable to be set aside.

7. It is not in dispute that Mr.G.B.Umesh, the complainant is a Retired Branch Manager of State Bank of Mysore.  In other words he is former member of family of OP. It is also not in dispute that on 31.07.2012, he went to OP2 bank to pay tax amount of Rs.19,590/- for issuance of the  cheque, with necessary challan and had requested bank manager to debit Rs.19,590/- to his account towards income tax in his name and  OP2 bank had given an endorsement on the challan stating that they are unable to process, since the PAN Card details are not updated in the CIF at Bengaluru Branch. In such circumstances, complainant had to rushed to Palace Ground by engaging the taxi which cost nearly Rs.2,000/-, since 31.03.2012 being the last date for payment of income tax, which in fact is not disputed at all by the OP.  It has come in the enquiry and the District Forum while passing the impugned order in para-13 observed OP1 bank is unable to process the request of payment of income tax and all State Bank of Mysore Branches are computerized during the year 2002 and all branches of State Bank of Mysore come under CORE Banking System during the year 2005. The Bank could have processed the request of the complainant, considering the  final day of filing of the returns of income tax, since, complainant being retired branch manager and in the alternative complainant had also an option to approach, yet another branch with the same Banking System, knowing Voltas Package System though online only and the banks cannot go far doing manually the things and it shall be done through the system alone is a different matter, but  facts remain found from the enquiry, that banking ombudsman gave an endorsement about its inability to resolve the  dispute on its part, which in our view is not justified. Further considering the age of the complainant, as he once was part of the OP bank family worked as branch manager, District Forum imposing cost of Rs.2,000/- for raising Consumer Complaint, could be said unjust and improper. In our view, if we justify imposing cost on complainant would be said setting bad precedent and in other words not only discouraging the consumers in general and complainant in particular.  And this nicety of the case was not considered by the District Forum.

8. In our view the District Forum could have considered the fact that on 03.10.2012, the branch manager had written a letter to complainant, expressing their deep regret for the inconvenience caused to the complainant for being unable to process his income tax challan on 31.07.2012 and even under letter dated 17.10.2012 Chief Manager of State Bank of Mysore has sent the apology letter dated 03.10.2012 for the inconvenience caused to him, was not considered by the District Forum. In such view of the matter, the impugned order passed by the I Additional DCDRF, Bengaluru has to be held contrary to fact and law is liable to be set aside.  Hence proceed to allow the appeal.  Consequently, set aside the order dated 19.07.2013 passed in CC/743/2013 and as a result ordered to allow the CC/743/2013 and directed OP Nos.1 and 2 to be more careful in future to serve the customer/consumer community and not to repeat such deficiencies in future.  Accordingly, appeal stands disposed off.

9. The Amount in deposit is directed to be transferred to District Commission to refund to the complainant.

10. Send a copy of this Order to the District Commission and parties to the appeal for information.

        Lady Member                                  Judicial Member             

*GGH*