Andhra Pradesh

Nellore

CC/29/2015

P.Brahmanandam, S/o Venkata Subbaiah - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, Andhra Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Inperson

17 Feb 2016

ORDER

                                           Date of filing       :  06-04-2015

                                          Date of disposal  : 17-02-2016  

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

           :: NELLORE ::

                                                       

Wednesday, this the 17th day of FEBURARY, 2016.

 

          PRESENT:  Sri M.Subbarayudu Naidu, B.Com.,B.L., LL.M.        

                                      President(FAC)& Member

                                      Sri N.S.Kumara Swamy, B.Sc., LL.B., Member

                              

                                          C.C.No.29/2015

 

P.Brahmanandam,

S/o.Venkata Subbaiah,

Doo No.6-6-3,

Jakkalavari street,

Kovur-524137,

SPSR Nellore District,

Andhra Pradesh, 64 years aged.                              …         Complainant

 

                      Vs.

The Manager,

Andhra Bank,

Upstairs KAtcheri Sub-Post Office,

Kovur Village & Mandal – 524137,

SPSR Nellore District                                          …            Opposite party

 

 

This matter coming on 03-02-2016   before us for final hearing in the presence of complainant appeared as in-person and Smt.G.Seshamma, Advocate for the  opposite party and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Forum passed the following:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          

ORDER                                                                                                                                                                                                                          (BY SRI M.SUBBARAYUDU NAIDU, PRESIDENT (FAC) ON BEHALF OF THE BENCH)

 

      This consumer case is filed by the complainant against the opposite party to direct it to return dishonoured instrument/dispatch within 24 hours as per RBI rules and order to pay compensation of Rs.2,000/- and with costs for deficiency in service on the part of opposite party towards him and pass such other relief or reliefs as the Hon’ble Consumer Forum may deemed it fit and proper in the circumstances of the case in the interests of justice.

 

The factual matrix leading to filing of this consumer case is as stated as hereunder:

I(a) It is the case of the complainant that he is having savings bank account bearing no.5099 in opposite party’s bank.  He presented State Bank of India cheque no.493280 for Rs.500/- for collection of it to opposite party on           02-03-2015.  It is further submitted by him that the branch manager of opposite party had contacted Zonal office, Ongole by phone about the said cheque clearance.  It is learnt that the zonal office, Ongole or branch manager of the opposite party are not yet decided to accept or not to accept the said cheque for collection.

(b) It is also further submitted by the complainant in para-2 of his complaint that the branch manager of opposite party had returned the above said cheque to him and further told him that “still today even lapse of 60 days your surname was not rectified as per order of the Hon’ble District Forum, Nellore. Then again, the complainant sent the said cheque by letter with registered post to opposite party on 4-3-2015 and it was received by the opposite party on 05-03-2015.

( c ) It is also further submitted by the complainant   in paras 3 to 4 at page no.2 of his complaint that the opposite party had returned  the said cehque by regd.post and dispatched on 10-03-2015 and further it is stated that it is against RBI Rules, “ Dishonoured instrument may ensure that the said instrument is returned/dispatched to customer promptly without delay on the same day but in any case within 24 hours” in any case the opposite party must follow RBI rules, but the bank returned after 96 hours.

(d) The Honourable District Consumer Forum, Nellore in its order in C.C.No.5/2014, it is mentioned that”………..  The opposite party is directed to change the surname of the complainant in the latest pass book as padala and the same, it is also mentioned as per complainant himself”.  ….. The complainant shall file the particulars requested by the bank in Ex.A8 within 15 days from the date of this order, in case the complainant fails to submit the same, the bank is at liberty to take an appropriate steps as per Laws.  In view of mistake on the part of the opposite party, a compensation of Rs.1000/- pay order with the surname of ‘P’ without rectified the surname as per Hon’ble Forum’s order as ‘padala’.  The complainant returned the pay order and he had already filed an appeal against C.C.No.5/2014 before the Hon’ble A.P.State Commission, Hyderabad, the said Appeal was allowed.

(e) The complainant has further submitted that at page no.2 of his complaint that there was delay and inconvenience caused to him.  Thereby, the bank may be order to pay compensation of Rs.2000/- with costs.  Hence, the complaint.

II.  DEFENCE:

      The opposite party was resisted the complaint by filing a written version/counter on 18-08-2015 by denying the allegations of the complainant in his complaint.  The complaint is not maintainable either in Law or on facts. Admitted facts are need not be proved.

 

The contents as per written version/counter filed by the opposite party:

1.It is the case of the opposite party that the complainant without complying the direction of the Hon’ble Forum and not submitted the requirements as per KYC norms and did not receive the cheque amount of Rs.1000/- sent to him and got the same returned to the bank and he had approached the Appellate Authority against the orders of this Hon’ble Forum and again mischievously presented the cheque to harass the bank.

 

2.It is also further submitted that in para-5 of written version/counter of opposite party that the complainant did not submit the required documents to rectify the mistake in his surname in his account so, the opposite party could not rectify the same and the cheques if any presented for collection cannot be honoured.  The complainant himself had not followed to the directions of this Hon’ble Forum and approached the Appellate Authority, during pendency of an appeal, cannot present any such cheques to opposite party’s bank and if he do so without obeying the directions of the Hon’ble Forum.  It is further submitted that it is only for the sake of harassment to the opposite party.  The bank is only for the service of customers but not to harass the customers.  Finally, the opposite party had prayed that the Hon’ble Forum may be pleased to dismiss the petition as not tenable.

 

III.  The complainant had filed chief-affidavit on 17-11-2015 and also his documents as Exs.A1 to A5 whereas the opposite party had also filed its affidavit through one Mr.D.Sreenivasa Reddy, branch manager of opposite party.  No documents are marked on behalf of the opposite party.  The written arguments of the case of complaint filed on 15-12-2015 likewise, the written arguments of opposite party also filed on 17-11-2015.

 

IV.   Basing on the  complaint, written version, documents, affidavits of both sides, the points that arise for determination of the case are as follows as:

 

(a)Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite

    parties towards the complainant?

(b)Whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs as

    prayed for, if it is so, to what extent?

          (c) To what relief?

 

V.  POINTS 1 AND 2 :

     In view of these two points are inter-related and depends on each other, they have been taken up together for discussion and determination of the case.  The complainant has once again reiterated the facts of the case, basing on the complaint and documents filed herein. It is nothing but repetition of them once again in his complaint.

 

 

 

Oral Submissions by the learned counsel for the complainant:

     The party-in-person as complainant has vehemently argued that the complaint, affidavit and written arguments may be read as part and parcel of his oral arguments. 

   He has once again contended the contents of his complaint and reiterated the facts  of the case and as proof of his case Exs.A1 to A5 documents are filed and further stated that opposite party-bank has not followed the earlier order passed by the Hon’ble Forum in C.C.No.5/2014.  He has  also further argued that there is a delay and inconvenience caused to him by not following RBI guidelines issued from time to time and thereby dishonor of cheque within the stipulated time.  Finally, the learned party –in-person complainant has prayed that the Hon’ble Forum may be pleased to allow the complaint with costs and compensation of Rs.2,000/-.

 

Oral Submissions by the learned counsel for the opposite party:

  On the other hand Smt.G.Seshamma, the learned counsel for the opposite party has also vehemently argued that the complainant himself has not followed as per order of the Hon’ble Forum and not furnished details of his name and other particulars to opposite party.  The opposite party has acted according to guidelines as per RBI directions and there is no deficiency in service on its part towards the complainant.  The complaint as not tenable and the opposite party is service oriented institution and it is now satisfying their customers.  Unnecessarily, the complainant himself approached Appellate Authority by filing an appeal against the order.  As he is not furnished the particulars as ordered and the opposite party has followed as per the RBI rules, accordingly.

Forum’s Findings and observations

       Heard, party-in-person, as well as the learned counsel for the opposite party. Parties led their evidence by way of affidavits.  We have perused the record very carefully. Oral arguments of this consumer case are advanced by the concerned parties.  Each case has to be judged on its own facts.  The primary principle of Law is that who seeks equity must come to the Consumer Forum with clean hands.

     This is a peculiar and petty case.  Why the party-in-person has approached Appellate authority i.e., the Hon’ble State Commission, for what purpose, without performing his part of obligation as per the order in C.C.No.5/2014 on the file of this Consumer Forum, Nellore.

     First of all, the party-in-person has to obey the order as pronounced, he must first furnish the required details to the opposite party bank and then he can expect what the opposite party to perform its obligation on its part. Simply, making an allegation against opposite party does not solve the problem of the party-in-person i.e., the complainant.

 

   The proceedings before the Consumer Fora are inquisitorial and not adversary. Consumer For a confers equity jurisdiction on the basis of Principles justice, equity and good conscience.  Technical aspects alone cannot be taken up for adjudication of disputes between the parties by the Consumer Fora such as dishonor of cheque or cheque return within 15 days as per RBI rules or some time later on 96 hours, is not the criteria to decide the case as the case may be.

 

   In view of the facts and circumstances of the case on hand, in order to meet the ends of justice, it is always better to furnish “Aadhar Card” particulars of the party-in-person i.e., complainant, to the opposite party-bank, to do necessary things by changing his name in his pass-book accordingly and thereby credit all the pending cheques to his account, to solve his problem by the opposite party.

 

   A petition after petition filing before the Forum or Appellate Authority by the party-in-person will not serve any purpose and moreover it will be cropped up further litigation between the parties continuously.  There is no end for it. Forum will not encourage such disputes between them, hereafter.  The Forum’s valuable time will be wasted and for that the concerned parties are alone responsible and answerable to the Forum. Anyhow, the parties are themselves can solve their problem instead of approaching the Forum, now and then, for a simple problem.  Aadhar card particulars of party-in-person shall be inserted in the pass-book of the complainant and thereafter transact business. There is a deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party towards the complainant.  The points 1 and 2 are held in favour of the complainant against the opposite party, accordingly.

 

POINT NO.3:  In the result, the complaint is allowed in part, ordering the opposite party that after receiving “Aadhar card” of the complainant and shall insert in his pass book afresh, his name correctly as it is and transact the business activities and credit all transactions which are pending till today without fail and to pay Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only) to him towards costs of the complaint within one month from the date of receipt of the order.

Typed to the dictation to the stenographer and corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Forum this the 17th day of FEBRUARY, 2016.    

             Sd/-                                                                             Sd/-

         MEMBER                                                                 PRESIDENT(FAC)

  APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

 WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR COMPLAINANT:

 

PW1

08-12-2015

:

Padala Brahmanandam, S/o.Venkata Subbaiah, aged 63 years, resident of D.No.6-6-3, Jakkalavari Street, Kovur – 524 137, SPSR Nellore District, A.P.

 

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR OPPOSITE PARTIES:

 

RW1

17-11-2015

:

Dwarampudi Sreenivasa Reddy, S/o.Ammi Reddy, Hindu, aged about 47 years, working as Bank Manager, Andhra Bank, Kovur.

                                                                              

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR COMPLAINANT:

 

Ex.A1	02-03-2015	:	Photostat copy of State Bank of India cheque with pay-in-slip.(1 page)
Ex.A2	03-03-2015	:	Photostat copy of letter with SBI cheque and pay-in-slip to the opposite party bank register post on 04-03-2015 receipt (1page)
Ex.A3	05-03-2015	:	Photostat copy of the cheque received by the opposite party bank received acknowledgement(1page)
Ex.A4	10-03-2015	:	Photostat copy of the opposite party return dispatched the said cheque by register post on       10-03-2015 (1page).
Ex.A5	26-06-2003	:	Photostat copy of  RBI – dishonoured instrument rules Ref.DBOD.BCLeg.No.113/09-12-001/2002-03(1 page)
Ex.A6	30-12-2014	:	Photostat copy of C.C.No.5/2014 order copy.

 

 

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR OPPOSITE PARTY:

                            

 

                                               -NIL-                                                                                                   

                                                                                          Id/-

                                                                                 PRESIDENT(FAC)

 

Copies to:

 

1) P.Brahmanandam, S/o.Venkata Subbaiah, Doo No.6-6-3, Jakkalavari street,    

    Kovur-524137, SPSR Nellore District, Andhra Pradesh 64 years aged.                

 

2) Smt.G.Seshamma, Advocate, Kovur, SPSR Nellore District.

 

Date when order copies are issued: