Karnataka

Kolar

CC/44/2015

S.k.Chandra Shekar - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, Pragathi Krishna Gramina Bank - Opp.Party(s)

19 Jul 2016

ORDER

Date of Filing: 10/09/2015

Date of Order: 19/07/2016

BEFORE THE KOLAR DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, D.C. OFFICE PREMISES, KOLAR.

 

Dated: 19^th DAY OF JULY 2016

PRESENT

SRI. N.B. KULKARNI, B.Sc., LLB,(Spl.)    …….    PRESIDENT

SRI. R. CHOWDAPPA, B.A., LLB               ……..    MEMBER

SMT. A.C. LALITHA, BAL., LLB         ……  LADY MEMBER

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO :: 44 OF 2015

S.K. Chandra Shekar,

Editor, Antharagange Newspaper,

Sai Krishna Nilaya, Opp. Town Police

Station, 5^th Cross, Gowripet,

Kolar-563 101.

 

(Rep. by Sriyuth. S.Sathish, Advocate)                     ….  Complainant.

 

- V/s -

(1) The Manager,

Pragathi Krishna Gramina Bank,

Kolar Branch, M.G. Road,

Kolar-563 101.

(Rep. by Sriyuth.M.N. Nagaraj, Advocate for

Sriyuth.N.Sampath Kumar, Advocate)    

 

(2) B.M. Mubarak,

Kolar City Municipal President,

Near Old Bus Stand,

Kolar-563 101.

(Since placed exparte)                                 …. Opposite Parties.

-: ORDER:-

BY SRI. N.B. KULKARNI, PRESIDENT

01.   The complainant, through this complaint as per Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has sought relief of compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for deficiency of service and cost of Rs.5,000/- (impliedly as against OP-1) and to impose appropriate penalty on the OP-2 for having lodged the false complaint against him with the Bank (OP-1) causing damage, loss and mental agony and such other reliefs together with costs of Rs.5,000/-.

 

02.   The facts in a nutshell:-

(a)    The complainant contends that, he is the current account holder vide No.10701110000332 with the Pragathi Krishna Gramina Bank, Kolar Branch, M.G. Road, Kolar (the OP-1) since 2009.  And that the account has been opened under the name and style “Editor, Antharagange”.  And that he is the lawful owner and the sole proprietor of the said Antharagange Kannada Daily. 

 

(b)    Further it is contended that, Sri. B.M. Mubarak, the City Municipal President being the OP-2 had lodged false complaint with the Manager of the OP-1 complaining that, he (the complainant) has had furnished misleading information.  And that for the convenience of the staff the said current account was opened on 14.09.2009.

 

(c)    Further it is contended that, he has been transacting in lakhs of rupees from the Government funds.  And that according to the documents Mr. Bharath Kumar was the lawful owner of the said Kannada Daily.  And that this OP-2 had requested the OP-1 to initiate action against him (the complainant).  And that the said complaint dated: 30.07.2015 annexed to the complaint is vide Annexure-A.

 

(d)    Further it is contended that, Xerox copy of a document said to have been issued by the Registrar of Newspapers for India as produced by the OP-2 being an invalid document is vide Annexure-B.  And that the said OP-2 had submitted FIR vide Crime No.104/2015 dated: 14.07.2015 which is vide Annexure-C.  And that said document is a false one.

 

(e)    It is contended that one Bharath Kumar was the original owner of the said Kannada Daily as per the registration certificate dated: 22.09.2013 issued by the Registrar of Newspapers, New Delhi.  And this certificate is vide Annexure-D.  And that the said Bharath Kumar had entered in to sale agreement in respect of the said newspaper before a notary in 2009 and the copy of it is vide Annexure-E.  And that the said Bharath Kumar made an affidavit dated: 27.02.2010 effecting sale of the said Kannada Daily before the Additional District Magistrate.  The copy of which is vide Annexure-F. 

 

(f)     It is also contended that to effect change of ownership he to submitted affidavits dated: 02.03.2010, 31.05.2011 and 07.07.2015 before the District Magistrate and copies thereof are vide Annexures - G, H & I.  And that as per the Press & Books Registration Act, 1867, Section 19B(3) the said Registrar of Newspapers was to up-date the corrections in the register maintained in this office.  And that change in the ownership was not updated by the said authority in time.  And that the OP-2 relied upon out-dated information. 

 

(g)    It is also contended that the OP-2 has no locus-standi to lodge such a complaint.  And that he is not an aggrieved party.  And that the Manager of the OP-1 Bank had revealed date of opening of the said current account together with account number to the OP-2.  And that thereby the OP-1 has violated the secrecy.  And that the OP-1 had freezed the operation of the said account on 05.08.2015 without any authority and causing much inconvenience.  And that this amounted to deficiency of service. 

 

(h)    Further it is contended that the OP-1 had issued a letter dated: 05.08.2015 informing freezing of the said account.  And that request made to the OP-1 to withdraw the freezing did not yield result.  And that the letter informing freezing of the account is vide Annexure-J.  And that the OP-1 had returned the cheque dated: 08.08.2015 issued in favour of Ramu and causing damage to his (complainant’s) reputation.  So contending, the complainant has come up with this complaint on hand to seek the above set out reliefs.

 

03.   The complainant along with the complaint did submit I.A. No.1 Under Section 151 CPC seeking interim order in the form of directions to the OP-1 to allow him to operate the said account.

 

04.   The OP-1 in response to the notices issued has put in its appearance through the said learned counsel, whereas the OP-2 has been placed exparte vide order dated: 01.10.2015.

 

05.   The OP-1 has submitted written version to the main complaint and also objections to I.A. No.1 separately.

 

(a)    Though maintaining of the said current account on the part of the complainant has been conceded there is denial of contended deficiency in service.  And specifically in objection to I.A. No.1 it has been contended that, freezing of the account made was justifiable.  And along with the objections to I.A. No.1; copy of the document dated: 29.06.2015 in the form of notice insisting compliance on the part of the complainant by the Department of Information and Public Relation, Government Of Karnataka, expecting compliance of provisions of Sub-Rule 7 of Rule 12(4) of Advertisement Implementation Rules, has been submitted.  In other words, there is direction to the complainant to submit a declaration with regard to change of ownership in respect of the said Kannada News Paper Daily and within six months thereof to submit revised RNI certificate.  And this document is to indicate that if there could be non-compliance then the said Kannada Daily was bound to be dropped from the list of media.

 

(b)    Thus dismissal of the I.A. No.1 and complaint came to be sought.

 

06.   Pending the present proceedings certain developments took place which came to be placed on record on 05.12.2015 as per the proceedings maintained in the order-sheet.  On this day the learned counsel appearing for the OP-1 submitted a document to indicate that the said account which was frezeed came to be de-frezeed.  And as the purpose of I.A. No.1 was served the same came to be disposed-off.

 

07.   Both the parties have submitted their affidavit evidence and further led oral and documentary evidence also.  The very complainant came to be examined as PW-1 and Exhibits.P.1 to P.15 came to be marked and received in evidence. 

 

08.   On behalf of the OP-1 Sri. R.Venkateshappa, Manager of the Pragathi Krishna Gramina Bank came to be examined as DW.1 and Exhibits.D.1 to D.14 came to be marked and received in evidence.

 

09.   Both the parties have submitted their written arguments through their respective learned counsel.  Heard the oral arguments as advanced by the learned counsel appearing for both sides.

 

10.   Therefore the only point that arises for consideration in this case is:-

“Whether this Forum has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint?”

 

11.   Our finding on the above point is in the Negative for the following:-

REASONS

12.   That the complainant is a consumer of the OP-1 Bank operating the said current account is no more in dispute.  The main contention of the complainant is that, the OP-2 Sri.B.M.Mubarak, the President of CMC, Kolar, had lodged a false complaint with the OP-1 on 30.07.2015 (vide Exhibit.P.1 equivalent to Exhibit.D.4) bringing it to the notice of the OP-1 that, the true owner of the Kannada Daily was one Bharath Kumar whereas the account was being operated by the present complainant Sri.S.K. Chandra Shekar.  And in response to it the OP-1 Bank on 05.08.2015 freezed the said account which is evidenced vide Exhibit-D.5 the copy of the letter addressed by the OP-1 to the complainant which stood signed by the complainant for having receiving the same in-person. 

 

13.   Exhibit-D.7 is the copy of the letter dated: 25.08.2015 addressed by the OP-1 to the PSI of Kolar Town PS.  On the strength of which Kolar Town PS Crime No.104/2015 came to be registered for the offences made punishable Under Sections 419, 420 of IPC and Under Section 15 of the Press & Registration of Books Act, 1867.  Exhibit-D.11 is a letter dated: 04.12.2015 addressed by the OP-1 to its counsel intimating that the account which was freezed on 06.08.2015 came to be de-freezed on 25.11.2015.  This was on the strength of request letter dated: 25.11.2015 at the instance of the complainant with a copy of certificate of registration dated: 05.08.2015.  Copy of such registration certificate dated: 05.08.2015 issued by the Registrar of Newspapers for India is vide Exhibit-D.13 is to disclose the present complainant as the publisher, printer, editor of the said Kannada Daily Newspaper.

 

14.   The above referred documents would indicate that with regard to change of ownership of the said newspaper in the name of the present complainant was still at the stage of consideration which the said authority considered on 05.08.2015.  True there is no rival claim for the ownership of the said newspaper and claim of the present complainant should prevail. 

 

15.   However we should be mindful with regard to the cause involved in the present dispute.  Undoubtedly the complainant is the consumer of the OP-1.  But neither he is a Consumer of the OP-2, nor the OP-2 is service provider of this complainant.  The cause of action, according to the complainant is that, this OP-2 being President of the CMC was the man behind in getting the said account freezed, which was accepted and acted open by the OP-1.  Though this Forum will have jurisdiction to consider the plea of deficiency of service as contended by the complainant against the OP-1, we lack jurisdiction to consider the plea of the complainant that the OP-2 was the main cause for it.  For, this OP-2 is an independent individual person.  As on any stretch of imagination this OP-2 cannot be termed as the service provider, the present complainant can never be termed as consumer of this OP-2.  The present litigation is a composite litigation against both these Ops i.e., against the OP-1 as service provider and against OP-2 who is not a service provider.  If at all this complainant is to seek relief as against both these Ops, he shall have to approach the appropriate jurisdictional Civil Court.

 

16.   Since this is a bonafide litigation on the part of the complainant before us the time spent for this litigation can be excluded as per Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, in case the present complainant to opt to seek relief before a competent jurisdictional Civil Court that too if aspect of litigation would arise for consideration.

 

17.   We proceed to pass the following:-

 

ORDER

(01)  For foregoing reasons the complaint stands dismissed for want of jurisdiction, with a direction to for the parties to bear their own costs.  However for the reasons noted above we repeatedly observe that the complainant shall be at liberty to approach jurisdictional Civil Court to seek relief against these OP Nos.1 & 2.

 

(02)  Send a copy of this order to both parties free of costs.

 

(Dictated to the Stenographer in the Open Forum, transcribed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us on this 19^th DAY OF JULY 2016)

 

 

 

 

MEMBER                         MEMBER                     PRESIDENT

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ANNEXURES

1) LIST OF PROSECUTION WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF COMPLAINANT:-

PW.1        ::      Sri. S.K. Chandrashekar

 

2) LIST OF DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED ON BEHALF OF COMPLAINANT:-

Exh.P.1::    Xerox Copy of letter dated: 30.07.2015 addressed to the Manager, PGB Bank/OP.1, Kolar Branch, by OP.2.

 

Exh.P.2::   Xerox copy of registration certificate issued by Registrar of News Paper for India in the name of Bharath Kumar.U (consisting of two sheets).

 

Exh.P.3::    Xerox copy of FIR pertaining to Kolar Town PS in Crime No.0104/2015.

 

Exh.P.4::    Xerox copy of certificate of registration issued by Registrar of

Newspapers for India converting from weekly to daily.

Exh. P.5::   Xerox copy of Sale Agreement dated: 28.06.2009 (consisting

of 03 sheets).

Exh.P.6::    Xerox copy of affidavit on stamp paper dated: 27.02.2010

sworn by Bharath Kumar.

Exhs.P.7 & 8::     Xerox copies of Declaration Form dated: 02.10.2010

and another declaration form dated: 31.05.2011.

 

Exh.P.9::    Xerox copy of affidavit on Stamp Paper dated: 07.07.2015

sworn by complainant.

 

Exh.P.10::  Xerox copy of letter dated: 05.08.2015 issued by Op.1 to

complainant.

Exh.P.11::  Xerox copy of OP.1 Bank cheque dated: 08.08.2015 issued by

the complainant in favour of Ramu.N for Rs.2,000/-.

 

Exh.P.12::  Xerox copy of endorsement of OP.1 Bank dt: 18.08.2015.

 

Exh.P.13:: Xerox copy of first page of Bank pass book in favour of

the complainant issued by OP.1.

 

Exh.P.14::  Xerox copy of certificate of registration issued by Registrar of

News papers for India in favour of complainant.

 

Exh.P.15:: Xerox copy of reminder dt: 08.01.2016 issued by Department of Information & Public Relation, Bangalore.

3) LIST OF PROSECUTION WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF OP:-

DW.1          ::        Sri.R.Venkateshappa

 

4) LIST OF DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED ON BEHALF OF OP:-

 

Exh.D.1::    Intimation dated: 29.06.20015 issued by the Information

Office & Public Relations Department, Bangalore, to the

complainant asking to furnish particulars as mentioned in the document.

 

Exh.D.2::    Order letter dated: 13.07.2015 issued by the Information

Office & Public Relations Department, Bangalore, to the

complainant.

 

Exh.D.3::    Xerox copy of complaint dated: 14.07.2015.

 

Exh.D.4::    Xerox copy of letter dated: 30.07.2015.

 

Exh.D.5::    Xerox copy of letter dated: 05.08.2015.

 

Exh.D.6::    Office copy of letter dated: 20.08.2015.

 

Exh.D.7::    Xerox copy of letter dt: 25.08.2015 issued by the Chief

Manager, Pragathi Krishna Gramina Bank, Kolar Branch.

 

Exh.D.8::    Office copy of letter dt: 29.06.2015.

 

Exh.D.9::    Office copy of Memorandum of Certificate dt: 13.07.2015.

 

Exh.D.10:: Xerox copy of bank statement pertaining to current

account bearing No.332 of the complainant consisting of 11

sheets.

 

Exh.D.11:: Office copy of the letter dated: 04.12.2015 issued by the

Chief Manager, Pragathi Krishna Gramina Bank, Kolar

Branch.

 

Exh.D.12:: Xerox copy of letter dated: 25.11.2015.

 

Exh.D.13:: Xerox copy of certificate of registration pertaining to

Antharagange Newspaper.

 

Exh.D.14::  Computer generated statement of account bearing Current

Account No.10701110000332.

 

 

 

 

 

MEMBER                         MEMBER                      PRESIDENT