::BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT BIDAR::
C.C. No.76/2019.
Date of filing: 02.12.2019.
Date of disposal:20.05.2023.
P R E S E N Ts:-
(1) Shri. Mabu Saheb H.Chabbi,
B.Com.,LL.B.,(Spl.),
President.,
(2) Kum. Kavita,
M.A.,LL.B.,(Spl.),
Member.
(3) Shri.Thriyambakeshwara,
B.A.,LL.B.,(Spl.),
Member.
COMPLAINANT/S Basagond S/o Hanamgond Nudanure,
Age:53 years, Occ: Coolie,
R/o Wallepur Tq:Aurad(B) Dist:Bidar.
(By Sri.Shreenath R.S. Advocate.)
V/s
OPPONENT/S 1. The Manager, DCC Bank Wadgaon (D)
Tq:Aurad (B) Dist: Bidar.
2. The Secretary Primary Agriculture,
Co-operative Society Bank Sorhalli,
Branch, Tq:Aurad (B) Dist:Bidar.
3. Siddamma W/o Hanamgond,
Age:Major, Occ:Household,
R/o Wallepur Tq:Aurad (B) Dist:Bidar.
4. Sushilamma W/o Basagonda,
Age:Major, Occ:Household,
R/o Wallepur Tq:Aurad (B) Dist:Bidar.
5. Nagagonda S/o Hanamgond,
Age:Major, Occ:Agriculture,
R/o Wallepur Tq:Aurad (B) Dist:Bidar.
6. G.Channamma W/o Gonda Pandari,
Age:Major, Occ:Household,
R/o H.No.18-4-515/2, Kalvagadda,
Aliabad, Charminar, Falaknuma,
Hyderabad-500053.
7. Raghunath S/o Hanamgond,
Age:Major, Occ:Govt.Servant,
R/o Wallepur Tq:Aurad (B) Dist:Bidar.
(By Sir OP No.1 & 2 Pandurang Rao Gadgiker
Advocate and OP No.3 to 7 Ex-parte.)
:: JUD G M E N T::
By. Sri. Shri.Thriyambakeshwara, Member.
The complaint has been filed by complainant under section12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the OPs for the deficiency of service by not settling the loan account claim of complainant. Hence, passed the following judgement.
Brief facts of the complaint.
The brief facts of the complaint in nut-shell are summarized as follows:
1. The complaint submits that, the father of the complainant by name Hanamgond during his life time opened an SB Account No.8272 in the OP bank. He died on 03.02.2017. It was noticed by the complainant that, subsequent to death of the father of complainant, on 31.03.2017 the Ops said to have sanctioned a KCC loan amount for Rs.20,000/- and deposited in his father account No.8272 by OPs. The complainant and his mother went to the OPs bank number of times for obtaining information about the SB Account details, but the OPs bank not gave any detail information regarding the SB Account. Thereafter, the complainant informed to OP's parties and their higher authorities of OPs who also did not give any instruction to the OPs to provide account detail of complainant father. Thereafter, the complainant had represented by way of written correspondence to OPs and also their higher authorities and in spite of that, Ops did not provide any information regarding the SB Account of complainant’s father by name Late.Hanamgond. The complainant again went to OPs No.1 bank Wadgaon (D) on dated 01.06.2019 asked for the same, but the OP No.1 being a manager of DCC Bank Wadgaon (D) did not give any detail or any response, and stated that, they won’t give any information. Then, the complainant went to Santapur police station on 02.06.2019 and lodged through typed complaint against the OPs and the complainant sent a typed complaint to the SP Bidar through registered post on 14.06.2019 for initiating legal action against the OPs and another person. The complainant further stated that, on 16.04.2018 an amount of Rs.4,000/- was withdrawn to show that, as if withdrawn by said father of complainant, but actually the father of complainant had not withdrawn the above said amount. and also complainant further stated that, on 26.02.2016 by transfer K.C.C Loan amount of Rs.20,020/- sanctioned in the name of complainant’s father account without any loan application or any request which clearly shows that, the Ops have illegally created and fabricated the documents in the name of Late Hanamgond and withdrawn the said amount of Rs.20,000/- on 03.04.2017 as self which is without intimating to the complainant or any other family members. Further complainant stated that, on 18.07.2018 again an amount of Rs.19,300/- was sanctioned as KCC loan in the name of Late Hanamgond and credited in SB Account No.8272 and again created forgery documents and withdrawn amount by OPs and by another person without any intimation to the complainant or any other family members. Further it was on 28.08.2018 an amount of Rs.10,000/- was withdrawn as self, when complainant noticed the said transaction by ops on 24.09.2018 and reliably learnt that, one Rajkumar S/o Hanmanthrao Mali Patil said to have withdrawn the said amount and the same was informed to the OPs for which OPs evasively replied that, on 28.08.2018 the amount is wrongly debited to the account of complainant father. The complainant demanded all transactions of said account by way of statement of KCC loan transaction detail, but the OPs never given any detail regarding illegal transaction which transacted by OPs and by another person and thereby cheated to the complainant father. On 02.07.2019 the complainant filed a private complaint before the jurisdictional magistrate at Aurad(B) Tq: Aurad Dist: Bidar and visited to the OPs bank on 05.10.2019 enquired about his father SB Account detail information which was illegally transacted by the Ops. But, the OPs gave neglected evasive answer to the complainant. The complainant issued a legal notice to the OPs on 11.10.2019 for the their deficiency in service and unfair trade practice which went in vain and hence he filed this complaint.
Written version of OP No.1 and 2.
2. The notices issued by this commission to the OPs served upon OP. The OP No.1 and 2 appeared before this commission through their counsel, and filed their written version, and No.3 to 7 remained absent before this commission, hence they have been placed ex-parte. OP NO.1 and 2 filed their W.V. the categorically denied almost averments against them which are as fallows.
Contents of Para No. 2 of the complaint are absolutely wrong and false and hence, specifically denied that. The complainant neither consumer to OP No.1 and 2 nor complainant under the definition of u/s 21(1)(d) of and nor any services are availed by him in person from OP NO.1 & 2, further the dispute raised by him is not at all consumer dispute under C.P.Act 1986. The complaint filed by him is not within time and no cause of action arose to him. Further, it is submitted that, under the law to maintain secrecy of the accounts, the OP No. 1 is prohibited from disclosing any information of the account details of any account holders to third persons. Hence, OP No. 1 is not under any obligation to furnish the details of the accounts of late Hanamgonda of his S. B. a/c. No. 8272 to the complainant or his mother. However, whenever account details demanded by the account holder, entries in the Pass Book are made available. The hue and cry raised by the complainant is contrary to law in expecting the OP No. 1 to disobey the law mandating to maintain the secrecy of the accounts. Therefore, the OP No. 1 is justified in refusing to furnish the account details to the complainant or to his mother. It is all absolutely wrong and false to say that, the complainant with his mother approached the OP No. 1 on several times seeking information and refused and that he has been approaching the higher authorities etc. and therefore, specifically denied. It is further absolutely wrong and false to say that, also many letters are given by the complainant to the OP No. 1 and the higher authorities and OP No.1 has not given any information regarding the S.B. a/c. of his father etc. and therefore, specifically denied. It is submitted that, the OP No. 1 does not recollect the approach by the complainant on the alleged date of 1-6-2019 seeking information. However, the OP No. 1 is justified in not furnishing any account details to the complainant, as he cannot be furnished the said details of the account of his father. The OP No. 1 is not within the knowledge of complainant making complaint to Santhpur Police on the alleged date of 2-6-2019 and any further complaint dated 14-6-2019 also to the S.P. and hence, specifically denied. Even otherwise, the Police also cannot take cognizance of any such complaint regarding the disclosure of the account details of anyone to unconcerned persons. The details of the transactions furnished by the complainant himself is apodictic proof of the fact that, the complainant procured the information by some fraudulent means holding himself criminally. The contents of Para No. 3 of the complaint are all absolutely wrong and false and hence, specifically denied. The father of the complainant has already availed and withdrawn all the amounts as indicated in the said Para, but, the complainant without any knowledge of the true facts, made all these false allegations. The detail facts are as given in FURTHER PARAS. The contents of Paras Nos. 4 to 8 of the complaint are also accordingly are absolutely wrong and false and therefore, specifically denied. The detail facts are as given in FURTHER PARAS. There are no any such deliberations attributed by the complainant so as to impeach any liability on the OPs. In fact, there is no financial loss to either the complainant or to his late father, Hanamgonda. It is further submitted that, no one has reported about the death of late Hanamgonda, the late father of the complainant on or after the date of his death as 3-2-2017. The contents of Para No. 8 of the complaint are not legally correct. There is no any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs as contemplated by the complainant. No loss or injury is caused either to the complainant or his brothers Nagnath and Raghunath or his mother, Siddamma being the L.RS. of late Hanamgonda. However, these OPs have already informed the complainant of the true facts, but, he making a capital of the un-knowing and un-noticed mistake crept in by sheer oversight, to make a false claim. On the contrary, the S. B. a/c. No. 8272 in the name of the late father of the complainant is to the credit balance of Rs. 11,324/- as on 8-1-2020. Hence, the claim for the alleged compensation is devoid of any merits and not maintainable and therefore, the complaint is fit to be dismissed. Therefore, these OPs are in no way liable to the complainant. It is submitted that, the OP No. 1 does not come under deficiency of service and unfair trade practice to the alleged consumer namely, the complainant is not legally correct. Any omission or mistaken acts without any wilful intention of commission of any of such acts does not amount any deliberate deficiency in service or the alleged unfair trade practice warranting no action. There being no deliberations on the part of the OP No. 1, the OP No. 1 is in no way is liable to the complainant in any way.
3. It is submitted that, there is a scheme for financing to agricultural operations for the agriculturists called KCC loan facilities at the concerned PKPS, OP No.2 and refinanced by OP No.1. Under this scheme, every beneficiary is entitled for credit facilities for crop loan in every year. Once this loan account is opened, every year as per the need, crop loan facilities are extended by PKPS Sorhalli, the OP No. 2 covering the loan. Every year, no requisition for grant of loan is necessary. All the transactions in the KCC account are routed through the S.B. a/c. of a particular borrower. It is submitted that, the father of the complainant namely, Hanamgonda s/o Basgonda r/o village Wallepur, tq. Aurad-B, Dist. Bidar was granted the benefit of KCC loan facility. Accordingly, on furnishing the application for opening of S.B. a/c. at Wadgaon-D branch, he was permitted to open S.B. a/c. in terms of his application dated 28-7-2009 which was assigned No. as 8272. This account was permitted to be operated by late Hanamgonda s/o Basgonda of village Wallepur, tq. Aurad-B since it's inception by late Hanamgonda s/o Basgonda. He had furnished his thumb impression, as he was not knowing reading and writing. Whenever there were any transactions, he operated the account under his thumb impression identified by someone known to the parties and sometimes by his own sons and some times, some literate persons. The OPs further submit that, since the inception of the account, Hanamgonda s/o Basgonda, the late father of the complainant himself operated the account with the due identification of either of his three sons namely, Nagappa, Basgonda, the complainant and Raghunath and some persons known to the Bank. Late Hanamgonda, the father of the complainant was sanctioned and permitted to avail of the KCC loan facility time and again. Likewise, on 31-3- 2015, KCC loan limit of Rs. 19,000/- is extended to him and this was availed by him only. On such credit and the credit balance available in his S.B. a/c. No. 8272, the balance available became Rs. 19,722/-. Out of the said loan, the late father of the complainant has Rs. 14,955/- leaving the balance of Rs. 4,767/-. Out of this balance of Rs. 4,767/-, the late father of the complainant withdrew a further sum of Rs. 4,000/- on 16-04-2015 leaving the balance at Rs. 767/- and it is a valid transaction. Therefore, it is wrong and false to say that, the father of the complainant not withdrawn Rs. 4,000/- on 16-4-2015 under the self drawn in the sum of Rs. 4,000/- and therefore, specifically denied. The father of complainant himself never made any such complaint since he had already withdrawn the admitted sum of Rs. 14,955/- on 31-03-2015 out of the KCC loan facility of Rs. 19,000/- credited on the same day of 31.03.2015 and the remained sum of Rs.4,000/- being Withdrawn on 16-4-2015. This transaction is denied by complainant turning hostile to his late father and the Ops Bank and when his father himself never complained since, this loan facility was admittedly availed by his late father. It is further absolutely wrong and false to say that, on 26-2-2016 by Trf. KCC Loan amount of Rs. 20,020/- sanctioned to the complainant's father, late Hanamgonda, without any loan application and therefore, specifically denied. In fact, it is a KCC loan and as demanded by father of the complainant, the said credit facility in the sum of Rs. 20,020/- was extended to Hanamgond, the late father of the complainant by transferring the same to his S.B. account No. 8272 and duly availed by him by withdrawing the said sum of
Rs. 20,020/- immediately under the Withdrawal slip of the even date i.e.
26-2-2016. The complainant has no locus standi to dispute the question the legality of the said transaction of credit and withdrawal when Hanamgonda, the father of the complainant himself never disputed turning hostile to the OPs Nos. 1 and 2 namely, the DCC Bank Ltd., Wadgaon-D or the PKPS, Sorhalli, the KCC loan arranging agency.
4. It is informed further by OPs that, there were no any further transactions of loan facility or withdrawals by Basgonda, the late father of complainant except credit of interest and receipt of compensation etc. credited by the Govt. bringing the S.B. account No. 8272 to the credit balance of Rs. 10,071- 98 P. as on 12-1-2017. At this juncture, these OPs submit that, one person by name Hanmanth s/o Basgonda of village Chikli-J, a member of PKPS Chikli-J applied for opening S.B. a/c. with the OP No. 1 and his account was permitted to be opened with the number assigned as 55508 w.e.f. 1-7-2016 and the said account was in operation. The said Hanmanth s/o Basgonda of Chikli-J was sanctioned KCC facility by the said PKPS Chikli-J in the limit of Rs. 20,000/- on 31-3-2017. The said loan limit was to be given credit to his account No. 55508 instead, by sheer clerical error, the PKPS Chikli-J noted the account of their member as Hanmanth s/o Basgonda as 8272 resulting into the crediting this loan to the a/c. No. 8272 of Hanamgonda s/o Baasgonda, a member of the PKPS, Sorhalli. Consequent upon the identical name, the said KCC loan in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- was wrongly credited to the account No. 8272 of late Hanamgonda s/o Basgonda, the father of the complainant. The said sum of Rs. 20,000/- was disbursed to the said Hanmanth s/o Basgonda of Chikli-J, under the withdrawal slip dated 3-04- 2017 though in a/c. No. 8272 instead of 55508. Likewise, the said Hanmanth s/o Basgonda of Chikli-J was sanctioned and credited on 18-7-2018, KCC loan of Rs. 19,300/- but, wrongly credited to the account of No. 8272 of Hanamgonda, the father of complainant. It stood realized then that, the credit made on 18-7-2019 is a wrong credit to the account of the father of complainant, namely Hanamgonda s/o Basgond. Therefore, OP No. 1 realizing the said mistake crept in, debited the account No. 8272 of the father of the complainant in the said sum of Rs. 19,300/- wrongly credited, and transferred the same to the account No. 55508 of the said Hanmanth s/o Basgonda of Chikli-J on 21-7-2019. However, these two above KCC loan credits and withdrawals in the year 2017and 2018 do not pertain to the father of the complainant, Hanamgonda s/o Basgonda though wrongly operated in his account. The debit entry of Rs. 10,000/- under the withdrawal slip dated 28-8- 2018 is the amount drawn out of the credit balance of Rs. 10,692/- in the S. B. account of the father of the complainant was permitted. It is further submitted that, the son of Hanamgonda s/o Basgonda of Wallepur namely, Nagappa, the brother of the complainant, approached the OP No.1 stating that, his father is seriously ill and hospitalized and is incapable of coming over to the Bank personally and therefore, requested the OP No.1 to accommodate him in the said sum of Rs. 10,000/- immediately. He presented the withdrawal slip with the thumb mark said to be of his father, and one Rajkumar Wallepur identified the said thumb mark. The OP No. 1 as a matter of courtesy and service to the account holder and just on humanitarian grounds, allowed the withdrawal to the said Nagappa, one of the sons of Hanamgonda s/o Basgonda of Wallepur, on the due identification of Sri Rajkumar Wallepur who took out the cash and left. It is sometime thereafter, OP No. 1 came to know that, the said Nagappa has committed fraud in withdrawing Rs.10,000/- by making false representation, therefore, the OP No. 1 contacted the said Nagappa and asked him to refund the said amount of Rs. 10,000/- else, the OP No. 1 would be constrained to initiate action against him. Consequently, the said Nagappa, on 24-09-2018 credited the said amount of Rs. 10,000/- wrongly withdrawn from the account of the father of the complainant, regaining the credit balance of Rs. 10,692/-. However, presently, after credit of interest etc., the credit balance in the S.B. a/c. No. 8272 of the father of complainant is Rs. 11,100.98 P. All the transactions of late Hanamgonda s/o Basgonda in his S. B. a/c. No. 8272 are genuine transactions duly operated by Hanamgonda himself. The complainant has no locus standi to dispute the question the legality of the said transaction of credit and withdrawal when the father himself never disputed turning hostile to OP No. 1 or the PKPS, Sorhalli, the KCC loan arranging agency. There are no any malafides on the part of the OP No. 1 as alleged but all actions of the OP No. 1 in permitting Hanamgonda, the late father of the complainant during his life are bona fide and genuine ones. There is no any such alleged creation or fabrication of any documents. However, the complainant not being an account holder, he cannot be made available the copies of any of the transactions of his father. It is re-iterated that, neither any such information can be furnished by OP No.1 to the complainant of the account of his father, late Hanamgonda nor the withdrawal slips and any such other papers being the property of the OP No. 1 can be parted with to anyone and this action of the OP is well within the four corners of law. However, the OP No. 1 is unaware about any alleged complaint dated 2-7-2019 before the jurisdictional Court. In the event of service of any such notices from such a Court, the same will be replied accordingly. It is much unfortunate that the complainant not furnished the case number and the name of the Court regarding filing of any complaint to any court of law, meaning it is a false allegation. The further fact of the alleged approach made on 5-10-2019 is totally wrong and false and therefore, specifically denied. Even otherwise, no details of the account can be furnished to any third party.
5. There is no any liability against Hanamgonda s/o Basgonda of Wallepur village, the father of the complaint in his loan a/c. No. 8272 despite the wrong operation of account of Hanmanth s/o Basgonda of Chikli-J of his a/c. No. 55508 in a/c. No. 8272 from 31-3-20`17 relating to only the KCC loan facility. Therefore, there is no any liability in the name of the father of the complainant because of the wrong operation of the account for the KCC loan only. The KCC loan disbursed and recovered is pertaining to the Hanmanth s/o Basgonda of Chikli-J from 1-1- 2017. The father of the complainant, Hanamgonda s/o Basgonda of Wallepur member of PKPS Sorhalli is neither the benefitiary of the KCC loan facility nor liable for KCC loan of Hanmanth S/o Basgonda of Chikli-J a member of PKPS Chikli-J wrongly operated in a/c. No. 8272. The complainant and the other L.Rs. of deceased Hanamgonda s/o Basgonda of Wallepur in the a/c. No. 8272, have no any claim for any alleged losses falsely claimed by the complainant at Rs. 73,320/- or any such other sums of money on account of the alleged compensation and interest etc. The complainant not furnished the details as to how he has arrived for the claim of
Rs. 73,320/- so as to make a specific and definite claim. There being no financial loss to the complainant and his brothers and mother, the complainant is not maintainable and is fit to be dismissed. It is further submitted that, since the inception of the S.B. account No. 8272 in the name of the father of the complainant, late Hanamgonda s/o Basgonda of Wallepur, the account was operated by him personally accompanied by his eldest son, Nagappa with the due consensus of his other two sons, namely, the complainant and Raghunath. The OP No. 1 recently learnt that, of late, all the three brothers are litigating with each other for properties and the instant notice and the complainant is the result of the litigation amongst the brothers. The instant complaint is the result of their internal dispute so as to land the said Nagappa and the OP No. 1and the concerned PKPS Sorhalli, the OP No. 2 in an uncalled for and vexatious litigation. In fact, there is no any iota of truth in the allegations contained in the complaint. It is further submitted that, OP No. 1 was never informed regarding the death of the late father of the complainant. On getting information, presently the S.B. account No. 8272 is freezed and locked. The brothers of the complainant namely, Nagappa and Raghunath and their mother, Siddamma are also necessary parties to the complaint. The instant complaint by the complainant alone is not maintainable and is therefore, fit to be dismissed. The complainant alone is not the legal heir or successor of late Hanamgonda s/o Basgond r/o Wallepur, tq. Aurad-B, Dist. Bidar. The other heirs and successors namely, 1. Nagappa and 2. Raghunath both sons of Hanamgond and his wife, Siddamma w/o Hanamgonda are also necessary and proper parties, they too having succeeded to late Hanamgonda s/o Basgond in their respective shares. Without all of them being made parties, the instant complaint is not maintainable and hence, the complaint is fit be dismissed. In the absence of all the other legal heirs and successors being not aggrieved, the complaint by the complainant alone is not maintainable and is therefore, fit to be dismissed in limine. The transaction is of the DCC Bank at their Wadgaon-D branch. The institution as a whole is a necessary and proper party to the instant complaint. The complaint against the designation is not maintainable without impleading the DCC Bank as a whole institution. Hence, the instant complaint is fit to be dismissed in limine.
Evidence of complainant.
6. The complainant examined himself by filing his evidence affidavit as P.W.1 and got marked 31 documents as per Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.31 on behalf of complainant which are as follows,
1. Ex.P.1-Pass book of Late Hanamgond. (13 pages)
- Ex.P.2-Statement of account from 01.01.2012 to 04.10.2018.
- Ex.P.3-Original copy of complaint given to Santpur P.S. dt:02.06.2019.
- Ex.P.4-Copy of complaint dt:14.06.2019 given to S.P.Bidar.
- Ex.P.5- Postal receipt.
- Ex.P.6-O/c of legal notice dt:11.10.2019 to OP No.1 bank.
- Ex.P.7- Postal receipt.
- Ex.P.8- Copy of legal notice dt:11.10.2019 to OP No.2 bank.
- Ex.P.9-Complainant’s mother representation dt:24.09.2018 to OP No.1.
- Ex.P.10- Complainant’s mother representation dt:27.09.2018 OP No.1’s M.D.
- Ex.P.11- Complainant’s mother representation dt:09.10.2018 OP No.2’s Secretary.
- Ex.P.12&13- Complainant’s mother representation dt:29.10.2018 to OP No.1 seeking details of transactions for period 16.04.15 to 24.09.18
- EX.P.14- Complainant’s mother representation dt:02.11.2018 to ARCS Bidar, seeking details of loan transactions of late Hanmgonda.
- Ex.P.15- Complainant’s mother representation dt:12.11.2018 to D.O of OP No.1, seeking details of loan transactions of late Hanmgonda
- Ex.P.16&17- Complainant’s mother representation dt:12.11.2018 to Supervisor ARCS Bidar, seeking details of loan transactions for period 16.04.15 to 24.09.18
- Ex.P.18- Complainant’s mother representation dt:19.11.2018 to Supervisor ARCS Bidar, seeking details of transactions.
- Ex.P.19- Complainant’s mother representation dt:19.11.2018 to ARCS Bidar, seeking details of transactions for period 16.04.15 to 24.09.18
- Ex.P.20- Complainant’s mother representation dt:19.11.2018 to ARCS Bidar, seeking details of loan transactions
- Ex.P.21-Complainant’s mother representation dt:20.11.2018 to GM of OP No.1, seeking details of transactions for period 16.04.15 to 24.09.18.
- Ex.P.22-NDC certificate issued by OP No.2.
- Ex.P.23 to 30-Postal receipts and acknowledgements.
- Ex.P.31-Copy of charge sheet in CC No.1014/2022. (58 pages).
Evidence of OP.
7. One Kailashnath S/o Sangappa Manager OP No.1 Bank, is examined as R.W.1 on behalf of OP No.1 bank and got marked 9 documents as per Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.9 which are as below.
- Ex.R.1-Copy of account opening Form of complainant father A/c No.8272 dt:28.07.2009.
- Ex.R.2-Copy of withdrawal slip No.640677 dt:16.04.2015 for Rs.4,000/- of Hanamgonda .
- Ex.R.3-Copy of application for drawal-cum-Disbursement statement of PKPS Chikli-J.
- Ex.R.4-Beneficiary list of OP No.1 KCC loan advancement of PKPS Chikli-J for the year 2017.
- Ex.R.5-Copy of withdrawal slip No.86883 in A/c No.8272 in the name of Hanmanth S/o basgonda of Chikli-J for Rs.20,000/-.
- Ex.R.6&7- Beneficiary list of KCC loan by PKPS Chikli-J for the year 2018.
- Ex.R.8-Copy of Specimen signature of Late Hanamgonda in OP NO.1 bank.
- Ex.R.9-Copy of statement of account dt:17.02.2023 for the period 01.07.2016 to 17.02.2023.
Points/Issues.
8. Heard the parties on record orally and written arguments and based on the pleadings, evidence and documents produced by the both parties, the points that arose for consideration before this Commission are as below.
- Whether the complainant proves that, he is consumer to OPs and further proves the deficiency of service from the OPs?
- Whether the OP NO.1 and 2 proves that, this commission has no jurisdiction to adjudicate complaint and the complaint is barred by limitation?
- Whether complainant is entitled for relief as sought in the complaint, if so, What orders?
9. Our answers to the points raised above are as follows: -
- In the affirmative.
- In the negative.
- As per the final order.
10. In order to decide the complaint issues, this commission discussed points/issues No.1 and 2 together for discussion as both points are inter related to each other- as follows.
11. It is the specific case of complainant that, his father by name Late Hanamgonda S/o Basagonda was the customer of OP No. 1 with S.B.A/c No.8272 and he availed KCC loan being sanctioned by OP No.2 to its members/agriculturist since the year 2012 being disbursed through OP No.1 bank and was repaying the same to Ops regularly. The said father of complainant died on 03.02.2017. The complainant and his mother and brothers are legal heirs/representatives of Late Hanamgonda, which is evident from averments of Para No.22 of W.V. (which ought to be Para No.23) and Para No.24 of OP No.1 and 2. Therefore, the complainant is consumer along with other legal heirs/representatives i.e, OP No.3 to 7. to Ops No.1 and 2 in the capacity of heirs and representatives. Hence, complainant is consumer to Ops.
12. Subsequent to death complainant’s father on 03.02.2017, the complainant noticed that, there were withdrawals from OP No.1 bank on 16.04.2015 for Rs.4,000/- through withdrawal slip in the name of his father and on which slip the signature found is not belonging to his father. Thereafter, on 26.02.2016 there was a transfer of an amount of Rs.20,020/- to said account No.8272 as KCC loan without there being any application to that extent, and subsequent to death of his father on 03.02.2017, there was again KCC loan sanction of Rs.20,000/- on 31.03.2017, and the said amount was withdrawn on 03.04.2017 as self, which is behind and back of complainant and OP NO.3 to 7, who are other legal heirs of deceased Late.Hanamgonda. Further, on 18.07.2018, again there was sanction of KCC loan amount of Rs.19,300/- in the name of complainant’s father Late Hanamgonda and the same was credited to A/c No.8272, which is evident from Ex.P.1 pass book. It is further stated that, on 28.08.2018, there was withdrawal of Rs.10,000/- as self, and which all above are not within knowledge of complainant or OP No.3 to 7. The above all transactions said to have been not transacted either by said his late Father Hanmgonda or through his authorization to anybody as entries found in Ex.P.1 S.B. A/c pass book and Ex.P.2 statement of A/c pertaining to said Account, which is subsequent to death of account holder Laate.Hanamgonda. However, after noticing the same, the complainant and his natural mother i.e., wife of Late Hanamgonda made number of oral and written requests/complaints and as per Ex.P.6 to Ex.P.8 legal notice/s and thereafter as per representations from Ex.P.9 to Ex.P.21 and Ex.P.23 to Ex.P.30 to Ops and their higher authorities are went in vain. However, the complainant succeeded in getting statement of A/c NO.8272 i.e., Ex.P.2 of his Late father Hanamgonda. The disputed transactions details which are sought by complainant from Ops and their various higher authorities are as fallows.
Sl.No. | Date | Particulars | Ins. Type | Amount |
01 | 16.04.2015 | Self | Withdrawal Slip | 4,000/- |
02 | 31.03.2017 | By Trf KCC Loan | Voucher | 20,000/- |
03 | 03.04.2017 | Self | Withdrawal Slip | 20,000/- |
04 | 18.07.2018 | By Trf KCC Loan | Voucher | 19,300/- |
05 | 21.07.2018 | By Trf KCC Loan wrongly credit | Voucher | 19,300/- |
06 | 28.08.2018 | Self Rajkumar Wallepur | Withdrawal Slip | 10,000/- |
07 | 24.09.2018 | Cash Wrongly Debit on 28.08.2018 | Voucher | 10,000/- |
Therefore, due to non furnishing of the same, the complainant lastly met OP No.1 on 01.06.2019, by seeking the above details and because of arrogant reply from Ops, he lodged complaint against to Ops NO.1 and 2, before Santapur P.S. Tq Aurad B and Dist:Bidar and as the said P.S. did not initiate action immediately, so,the complainant sent written complaint to S.P.Bidar as per Ex.P.4 dated 14.06.2019, and thereafter FIR was registered in Cr.No.6/2020 on 14.01.2020 by Santapur P.S. and investigation was done as per Ex.P.31 charge sheeted against to OP No.1 and 2 for the offence u/s 419,420,465,468/71,409,504 and 506 IPC.
13. The OP No.1 and 2 denied the entire above case of complainant by filing W.V. on the ground that, complainant alone is not consumer, and other legal heirs/ representatives of Late Hanamgonda are all necessary parties and the complainant did not sue the complaint against its whole bank institution and arrayed only OP NO.1 in its capacity, which is not maintainable in law. Further, contended that, OP No.1 is not supposed to share any account details of Late Hanmagonda to any other third party including complainant and the dispute raised by complainant is not a consumer dispute and more over the said dispute /complaint is not within time as per C.P.Act, and the complainant did not intimate the OP No.1 and 2 regarding death of his father immediately after death and it is only after receiving death intimation of his father, the A/c No.8272 is freezed and locked. Therefore, contended that, there is no deficiency in service of any kind either to complainant or his Late father for the reasons stated in his W.V. Para No.10 to 14 on the ground that, the said disputed transactions were taken place on the mistaken fact of similarity of name of his father late Hanamagonda S/o Basagonda R/s Wallepur, Tq:Aurad and another similar person by name Hanmanth S/o Basagonda R/o Chickly J village and also member of PKPS chikli J village and due to confusion of said name and transactions of said another person Hanamanth S/o Basagonda R/o Chikli J village was operated with the account No.8272 of Late Hanamgonda S/o Basagonda R/o Wallepur village and member of PKPS Wallepur/OP No.2, which is wrongly entered transactions by OP No.1 staff and hence, pleaded that, there is no any deficiency in service towards complainant or his father in any manner as alleged in complaint and there is no explanation by complainant as to how he is entitled for Rs.73,320/- as prayed in complaint and hence, prayed for dismissal of the complainant for the reason stated above.
14. On perusal of the entire pleadings, evidence of oral and documentary of the both parties, it is noticed by this commission that, as per complainant case, all the above disputed transactions as shown in above Para No.8 of this judgment said to have been taken place by Ops No.1 and 2 by creating forgery and fabricated documents and thereby cheated the complainant and his father by way of playing fraud with account No.8272 after death of his late father. On detailed scrutiny of the pleadings of OP No.1 and 2, they have not spelt any single objections with regard to the maintainability of the complaint on the stated grounds of forgery, fraud and cheating, except denying the above facts . However, at the time of argument, this commission under its judicial notice regarding maintainability of the complaint on the above stated grounds, basing on the principle laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in reportable Decision decided on 27-03-2023 in Civil Appeal No.7289/2009 in between “the Chairman and Managing Director city Union Bank Ltd. Vs R.Chandra Mohan” by holding that, the highly disputed facts of cheating, fraud, and forgery are not triable by the commission under C.P.Act and it is the Civil Court which is competent to decide the same. Later on the next date of hearing the OP No.1 and 2 also produced the said citation along with their written argument and prayed for dismissal of the above complaint based on above citation along with other citations of Hon’ble NCDRC Delhi.
15. On care full scrutiny of the facts discussed in the above cited case of Hon’ble Apex Court/commission and the case in hand, this commission noticed that, Ex.P.31 is the charge sheet in Cr.No.6/2020, on the file of Santapur P.S. wherein the Santpur P.S. have referred the disputed signatures of Late Hanamgonda on bank vouchers & slips to FSL laboratory Bangalore for getting opinion on the signatures found, which are marked as Q1 to Q7 from page No.31 to 52 in disputed transactions vouchers and withdrawal slips and based on FSL report signatures of Late Hanamgonda under S-series signatures, opined that those are not tallying with each other and thereby the FSL had opined that, the said disputed signatures found on withdrawal vouchers & slips, are not pertaining to late Hanamgonda S/o Basgonda R/s Wallapur with other his signature found with OP No.1 bank. Therefore, in this matter dispute of forgery is already opined by FSL and the same final report is placed along with Ex.P.31 charge sheet at column No.17, so now remains no room to be adjudicated by this commission in respect of forgery , fraud and cheating. Moreover, the OP No.1 and 2 have not challenged the said FSL report before any competent authority/court and not denied the same in his W.V or subsequently at any stage, with regard to maintainability of the complaint in respect of forgery, fraud and cheating. Under the said circumstances, this commission is of the opinion that, this Commission need not be adjudicating any aspects of forgery, fraud and cheating as averred in the complaint, as there is separate proceedings going on in CC No.1014/2022 on the file of JMFC Court Aurad (B) Tq:Aurad Dist:Bidar. The proceedings before JMFC court are nothing to do with present proceedings, as it decides only deficiency in service, negligence and unfair trade practice in respect of complaint averments. And more over any order passed by the Criminal Court is also not binding on this Commission, as its jurisdiction is limited as stated above. The OP No.1 and 2 have relied on citation 2003 CJ 179 (NC) and Civil Appeal No.7289/2009 in between “the Chairman and Managing Director city Union Bank Ltd. Vs R.Chandra Mohan” of Hon’ble Supreme Court are Distinguished from the facts in the instant case. In the above citation of Hon’ble Supreme Court, there is no such decided opinion by expert/FSL lab report on the stated facts of forgery, fraud and cheating, hence it was held in the said case that, the alleged forgery, fraud and cheating, are not ad-judicable before the consumer Commissions. Therefore, this commission with great due respect to the ratio laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court/Commission in the above cited decisions, is of the opinion that, the said ratio cannot be made applicable in the instant case, as said disputed aspects of forgery, are already proved by FSL final report in respect of disputed signatures (Q1 to Q7 as per Ex.P.31) of late Hanamgonda are not tallied with S-series signatures of same late Hanamgonda S/o Basgonda Wallapure i.e., father of complainant and said proceedings are pending before Hon’ble JMFC Court Aurad-B Tq:Aurad and Dist:Bidar. Under the said circumstances in view of the admitted facts by OP No.1 and 2, as per Para No.18 to 20 as to disputed transactions taken place with the S.B. Account No.8272 of complainant father on the mistaken clerical errors of his staff on the ground that, similarity of name of other person by name Hanamanth S/o Basgond R/o Chikli J village having account No.55508, has operated with Late Hanamgonda A/c No 8272 with OP No.1 and 2 and because of said mistake only this disputed transaction were taken place, which is clear cut admission by OP No.1 and 2, which amounting to not only deficiency in service, which is a case of sheer negligence and unfair trade practice in the eyes of law by not rectifying the said mistake, when the complainant and other legal heirs and representatives have approached pillar to post of Ops office and their higher ups regularly which is evident from representations from Ex.P.9 to Ex.P.21 and Ex.P.23 to Ex.P.30 to Ops. Therefore, this commission is of the opinion that, the OP No.1 and 2 utterly failed to prove their case and moreover by considering the continuous transactions being taken place with Account No.8272, and date of filling of complaint and further not rectifying the above mistakes till filing of this complaint does make a case of continuous cause of action for filing of this complaint and hence, this commission is of the opinion that, the complaint filed by the complainant is well within the time stipulated under C.P.Act. Hence, in any angle the grounds urged by Ops for dismissing the complaint as prayed for by them does not hold water good under law for the above stated reasons.
16. The complainant has prayed for directing the Ops for payment of Rs.73,320/- without explaining the same under What grounds he is entitled for the same from Ops and the same is denied by OP No.1 and 2. Because, whatever the amounts were illegally transacted were reverted to complainants father account without any further demand for recovery of any dues by complainant’s father to their bank, as nothing is whispered about the same in the W.V. of OP No.1 & 2. Under the said circumstances without their being any kind of evidence of financial loss before this commission by complainant, this commission is of the opinion that, if a global compensation is awarded which would suffice to complainant for the harassment, inconveniences, and time & costs spent for all these litigations un-necessarily without any fault on the part of either account holder late.Hanamgonda S/o Basgonda or complainant and where as in view of admission made by OP No.1 & 2 for having taken place such transaction due to clerically errors by his staff and their failure to rectify the said mistakes prior to lodging of complaint before concerned P.S. and this Commission which is evident from oral and written requests/complaints from E.x.P.9 to Ex.P.21 and Ex.P.23 to Ex.P.30 and as per Ex.P.6 to Ex.P.8 legal notice/s to Ops and their higher authorities and further operating the SB a/c of 8272 subsequent to death of Late Hanamgond the father of complainant by Ops 1&2 till lodging the complaint before concerned Police station are glory example of their inactiveness, deficiency in service negligence and unfair trade practice.
17. In view of above facts and discussion by this commission, we are of the opinion that, the complainant has proved his case against Ops No.1 and 2 and accordingly the point No.1 and 3 answered in the affirmative in favor of complainant and point No.2 answered in negative against to OP No.1 and 2 hence, proceed to pass the following order.
::ORDER::
The complaint filed by the complainant against Ops No.1 and 2 is allowed in part.
The OP No.1 and 2 are here by directed to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- for their inactiveness, deficiency in service negligence and unfair trade practice towards complainant along with Rs.10,000/- as litigation charges to the complainant.
The case against Ops No 3 to 7 is dismissed as they are legal heirs of late Hanamagonda and no allegations & claim against to them.
The above orders shall be complied by the OP No.1 and 2 within 45days from the date of this order.
Intimate the parties accordingly.
(Typed to our dictation then corrected, signed by us and then pronounced in the open Commission on this 20th day of May-2023).
Kum. Kavita, Member DCDRC Bidar. | Shri.Thriyambakeshwara, Member DCDRC Bidar. | Shri.MabuSaheb H. Chabbi, President DCDRC Bidar. | |
Documents produced by the complainant.
- Ex.P.1-Pass book of Late Hanamgond. (13 pages)
- Ex.P.2-Statement of account from 01.01.2012 to 04.10.2018.
- Ex.P.3-Original copy of complaint given to Santpur P.S. dt:02.06.2019.
- Ex.P.4-Copy of complaint dt:14.06.2019 given to S.P.Bidar.
- Ex.P.5- Postal receipt.
- Ex.P.6-O/c of legal notice dt:11.10.2019 to OP No.1 bank.
- Ex.P.7- Postal receipt.
- Ex.P.8- Copy of legal notice dt:11.10.2019 to OP No.2 bank.
- Ex.P.9-Complainant’s mother representation dt:24.09.2018 to OP No.1.
- Ex.P.10- Complainant’s mother representation dt:27.09.2018 OP No.1’s M.D.
- Ex.P.11- Complainant’s mother representation dt:09.10.2018 OP No.2’s Secretary.
- Ex.P.12&13- Complainant’s mother representation dt:29.10.2018 to OP No.1 seeking details of transactions for period 16.04.15 to 24.09.18
- EX.P.14- Complainant’s mother representation dt:02.11.2018 to ARCS Bidar, seeking details of loan transactions of late Hanmgonda.
- Ex.P.15- Complainant’s mother representation dt:12.11.2018 to D.O of OP No.1, seeking details of loan transactions of late Hanmgonda
- Ex.P.16&17- Complainant’s mother representation dt:12.11.2018 to Supervisor ARCS Bidar, seeking details of loan transactions for period 16.04.15 to 24.09.18
- Ex.P.18- Complainant’s mother representation dt:19.11.2018 to Supervisor ARCS Bidar, seeking details of transactions.
- Ex.P.19- Complainant’s mother representation dt:19.11.2018 to ARCS Bidar, seeking details of transactions for period 16.04.15 to 24.09.18
- Ex.P.20- Complainant’s mother representation dt:19.11.2018 to ARCS Bidar, seeking details of loan transactions
- Ex.P.21-Complainant’s mother representation dt:20.11.2018 to GM of OP No.1, seeking details of transactions for period 16.04.15 to 24.09.18.
- Ex.P.22-NDC certificate issued by OP No.2.
- Ex.P.23 to 30-Postal receipts and acknowledgements.
- Ex.P.31-Copy of charge sheet in CC No.1014/2022. (58 pages).
Document produced by the OP.
- Ex.R.1-Copy of account opening Form of complainant father A/c No.8272 dt:28.07.2009.
- Ex.R.2-Copy of withdrawal slip No.640677 dt:16.04.2015 for Rs.4,000/- of Hanamgonda .
- Ex.R.3-Copy of application for drawal-cum-Disbursement statement of PKPS Chikli-J.
- Ex.R.4-Beneficiary list of OP No.1 KCC loan advancement of PKPS Chikli-J for the year 2017.
- Ex.R.5-Copy of withdrawal slip No.86883 in A/c No.8272 in the name of Hanmanth S/o basgonda of Chikli-J for Rs.20,000/-.
- Ex.R.6&7- Beneficiary list of KCC loan by PKPS Chikli-J for the year 2018.
- Ex.R.8-Copy of Specimen signature of Late Hanamgonda in OP NO.1 bank.
- Ex.R.9-Copy of statement of account dt:17.02.2023 for the period 01.07.2016 to 17.02.2023.
Witness examined.
Complainant.
P.W.1- Basagond S/o Hanamgond Nudanure, (complainant)
OP.
R.W.1- Kailashnath S/o Sangappa Manager OP No.1 Bank,
Kum. Kavita, Member DCDRC Bidar. | Shri.Thriyambakeshwara, Member DCDRC Bidar. | Shri.MabuSaheb H. Chabbi, President DCDRC Bidar. |
