Date of Filing: 13/07/2011
Date of Order: 14/09/2011
BEFORE THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE - 20
Dated: 14th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2011
PRESENT
SRI.H.V.RAMACHANDRA RAO,B.SC.,B.L., PRESIDENT
SRI.KESHAV RAO PATIL, B.COM., M.A., LL.B., PGDPR, MEMBER
SMT.NIVEDITHA .J, B.SC.,LLB., MEMBER
COMPLAINT NO. 1298 OF 2011
Sri. Sundar Reddy,
S/o. Konda Reddy,
Aged About 27 years,
R/at: No.140, Ragurama Layout,
Ramachandrapuram,
Bangalore-560 013.
(Rep. by Advocate Sri. Appi Reddy) Complainant.
-V/s-
The Manager,
State Bank Of India,
Jalahalli Branch,
BEL, Bangalore-560 013.
(Rep. by Advocate Sri.M.Harish) Opposite party.
BY SRI.H.V.RAMACHANDRA RAO, PRESIDENT
ORDER
The brief antecedents that lead to the filing of the complainant made Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, seeking direction to the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.2,60,000/-, are necessary:-
The complainant has a savings bank account in the opposite party Bank bearing No.30751689897. One Sheshadri Reddy and his partner Doraiswamy Naidu of M/s. Balaji Travels, have issued a post dated cheque for Rs.3,00,000/- dated: 27.02.2009 and another post dated cheque for Rs.2,00,000/- dated: 30.03.2010 towards their dues to complainant. As per their advise the said cheques were presented for encashment in the opposite party Bank on 08.04.2010. The opposite party has honoured the cheque for Rs.2,00,000/- and credited it on 09.04.2010. When the complainant wanted to withdraw the said amont the opposite party did not permit the complainant to withdraw the said amount. Hence the complainant issued notice to the opposite party on 18.06.2011. The complainant has also issued a post dated cheque dated: 18.09.2010 in favour of one R. Venkateshwaralu, on presentation it was dishonored by the opposite party on flimsy grounds. This has caused enormous damage to the complainant. The complainant sent number of reminders. He also issued notice on 27.09.2010, to which an untenable reply was given stating that the complainant has forged the signature of the drawers of the cheque. Hence as instructed by the drawer bank they had kept the amount withheld and also stated that criminal case No.23/01 is pending before the Sanjaya Nagar Police Station filed by one Thirumalesh. Hence the complainant went to Sanjayanaar Police Station and found that there was no case registered therein. The complainant approached the Session’s Court in Criminal Misc. No. 3310/2010 where the Public Prosecutor have stated that no Criminal Compliant is filed against the complainant. Hence the complainant approached the opposite party in this regard asking them to permit him to withdraw the amount. Even then the opposite party did not permit withdrawal of the same. Hence the complaint.
2. In brief the version of the opposite party are:-
The Savings Bank account of the complainant, his presentation of the cheque for Rs.2,00,000/-, it was honoured and amount is kept in the Bank are all admitted. On the same day the opposite party has received instructions from Yeswanthpur Branch that the drawer of the cheque Dorai Swamy Naidu has complained that the said cheque is forged. In this regard a petition No.23/10 was filed against the complainant before the Sanjay Nagar Police Station and a letter was also written to the opposite party on 28.06.2010 to furnish the details of the account for investigation. PCR No.28021/2010 is filed before the 8th Additional ACMM Bangalore Court and it has ordered investigation. As having knowledge of the stop payment the complainant has issued the post dated cheque dated: 18.09.2010. The opposite party has replied the notice to the complainant. The criminal matter is still pending, hence this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.
3. To substantiate their respective cases the complainant has stated that his compliant and documents be read as his evidence. The opposite party has filed his affidavit. The arguments were heard.
4. The points that arise for our consideration are:-
- Not permitting to withdraw Rs.2,00,000/- which is credited to the account of the complainant by the opposite party amounts to unfair trade practice/deficiency in service?
- What order?
5. Our findings on the above points are:-
Point (A):In the Positive
Point (B):As per the final order
For the following:-
REASONS
POINT (A) to (B):-
6. Reading the pleadings in conjunction with the documents and the affidavits on record, it is an admitted fact that the complainant is having a SB account in the opposite party’s bank. It is also an admitted fact that one Dorai Swamy Naidu and Seshadri Reddy had issued a cheque for Rs.2,00,000/- bearing No.504475 dated: 30.03.2010 drawn in the name of the complainant in SBI Yeshwanthapura Branch, Bangalore. The complainant credited the said cheque to his SB account with the opposite party bank for encashment on 08.04.2010. As usual the Bank sent the cheque to the Yeshwanthapura Branch and verified and the cheque was cleared and the amount was transferred to the account of the complainant. It is seen from the pass book up to 06.10.2010 the said amount is still standing in the name of the complainant. But however it is seen subsequently when the complainant approached the opposite party to release the money, the opposite party did not agree, but told the complainant that there is a criminal case registered in the Sanjay Nagar Police Station. The complainant approached the Sanjay Nagar Police Station and found no such criminal case is registered and because of the apprehension made to the complainant by opposite party, he had applied before the learned Additional Session’s Judge of FTC, Bangalore. Wherein the learned Public Prosecutor has clearly stated that no criminal case is registered against the complainant in the Sanjay Nagar Police Station or elsewhere and because of the apprehension the complainant was granted anticipatory bail on 10.08.2010. Even thereafter intimations to the opposite party it did not permit the complainant to withdraw the money. It is seen that on 17.06.2010 drawer of cheque has written a letter to the Yeshwanthpura Branch and to the opposite party on 28.09.2010 stating that he has filed a PCR No.28021/2010 before the 8th Additional CMM, Bangalore and the 8th Additional CMM, Bangalore, has referred the matter to the police for investigation on 21.08.2010. It does not mean the opposite party is justified in refusing the complainant to withdraw the amount which is standing to his credit. There is no order from any court, tribunal or body to stop payment of the amount which is already transferred to the account of the complainant. When the cheque has been cleared on 08.04.2010, why till 21.08.2010 the opposite party did not permit the complainant to withdraw the money? This itself clearly goes to show that the opposite party is hands in glouse with others as rightly contended. If Dorai Swamy Naidu or anybody has any claim in question they have to file a separate suit and recover it from the complainant for which this order will not come in that way. But opposite party cannot with held the amount which is already standing in the account of the complainant. Hence the action of the opposite party is nothing but deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Hence we hold the above points accordingly and proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER
1. The complaint is Allowed-in-part.
2. The opposite party is directed to pay to the complainant sum of Rs.2,00,000/- together with interest thereon at the rate of 12% per annum from 08.04.2010 until payment within 30 days from the date of this order.
3. The opposite party is also directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.2,000/- as costs of this litigation.
4. The opposite party is directed to send the amounts as ordered at Serial Nos. 2 & 3 above to the complainant through DD by registered post acknowledgment due and submit the compliance report to this Forum with necessary documents within 45 days from the date of this order.
5. Return the extra sets filed by the parties to the concerned as under Regulation 20(3) of the Consumer’s Protection Regulation 2005.
6. Send a copy of this order to both the parties free of costs, immediately.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Forum on this the 14th Day of September 2011)
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
