Karnataka

StateCommission

A/581/2021

T Sathyanarayana - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

S B Mukkkannappa

16 Aug 2021

ORDER

BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE

 

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF AUGUST 2021

 

PRESENT

 

HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE HULUVADI G. RAMESH    : PRESIDENT

MR. KRISHNAMURTHY B. SANGANNAVAR      : JUDICIAL MEMBER

MRS. DIVYASHREE M.                                     : MEMBER

 

Appeal No.581/2021

 

T. Sathyanarayana Aged 68 yrs, S/o. Late Thimmarayappa, Murthy Farm, Dombarahalli, D. C. Gowda Building, Lakshmipura Road, Bangalore North Taluk, Bangalore.   (By S. B. Mukkkannappa) V/s	……Appellant
The Manager, Karnataka Bank Ltd., Murphy town Branch, Near Adarsh Theatre, Ulsoor, Bangalore 560008	……Respondent

 

O R D E R

 

Mr. JUSTICE HULUVADI G. RAMESH, PRESIDENT

This appeal is preferred by the complainant aggrieved by the order dated 17.03.2016 passed in C.C.No.2358/2012 on the file of II Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bangalore.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 08.07.2010 complainant had sold his agricultural property situated at Nandhure Village, Gowdagere Hobli, Sira Taluk, Tumkur District in favour of one Sri. A.R.Ashok. The purchaser issued DD bearing No.311117 dated 22.01.2010 drawn on Karnataka Bank Ltd. Gokula Branch, Bangalore 560054. 
3. Further it is alleged that during the month of October 2010, OP No. 1 has stolen the D.D. from complainant’s house and by colluding with Op Nos. 2 & 3 opened Savings Bank account No.15839 in the name of OP No. 2, OP No. 3 is the introducer and opened account in OP No.4 / bank.  OP No. 2 deposited the stolen DD amounting to Rs.4,40,000/- in the said S.B. account and thereafter, withdrawn a sum of Rs.2,40,000/-. Further the complainant lodged police complaint and issued legal notice to OPs calling upon them to refund Rs.4,40,000/- with interest, to which OP No. 4 replied stating that they are ready to pay the amount on the basis of the order of any competent court.  Hence, this complaint.
4. OP Nos. 1 to 3 are deleted on the basis of memo filed by complainant.  Upon service of notice OP No. 4 appeared and filed version denying the allegation of the complainant and stated that complainant has filed complaint before the 4th Additional Chief Magistrate Bangalore against the OPs and OP Nos. 1 to 3 and complainant have compromised and the said case was disposed of as settled before the Lok Adalat and thus, the complaint is not maintainable.  Further stated that in view of police complaint, OP No. 4 freezed the account and asked the complainant to bring proper order for payment from the competent court.  Further contended that the transaction made by OP No.2 with this OP is as per banking norms and there is no fraudulent act committed by this OP.  Thus, sought dismissal of complaint.
5. On the basis of the records and evidence District Forum dismissed the complaint.
6. Heard the counsel for appellant. 
7. Having lost the D.D. for Rs.4,40,000/- on the alleged theft, complainant approached the District Forum.  District Forum having considered the facts of the case dismissed the case on the ground that matter is settled before 4^th ACM between complainant and OP Nos. 1 to 3.  The stand of the appellant is that there is dis-obedient service on the part of the bank, as such the order passed by the District Forum is not correct.
8. The fact remains that when the complainant has made an allegation of theft and when such allegation has been settled before 4^th ACMM, before Lok adalath, order under compromise petition should be binding on the parties which cannot be decided on merits in this type of situation.  Accordingly, appeal is disposed of.

 

PRESIDENT

 

 

JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

 

MEMBER

CV*