The Manager, State Bank of Mysore, The Assistant General Manager, State Bank of Mysore
...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
ORDER
Date of Filing:14.09.2009 Date of Order: 19.05.2010 BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20 Dated: 19TH DAY OF MAY 2010 PRESENT Sri. S.S. NAGARALE, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), President. Smt. D. LEELAVATHI, M.A.LL.B, Member. Sri. BALAKRISHNA. V. MASALI, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), Member. COMPLAINT NO: 2210 OF 2009 Sri Krishna Properties Rep. by its partner H.Nagaraja S/o Hanumappa R/at No.7&6, Sri Ganesha Krupa 5th Cross, New Bank Colony, Konankunte, Bangalore-62. Complainant V/S 1.The Manager, State Bank of Mysore Puttenahalli Branch, SLV Complex, No.12, RBI Colony, 80 Ft. Road, J.P.Nagar 7th Phase, Bangalore-78. 2.The Assistant General Manager, State Bank of Mysore, Head office, K.G.Road, Bangalore-09. Opposite Parties ORDER By the President Sri. S.S. Nagarale This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The brief facts of the case are that, the complainant submits that on 29-5-2007 he deposited a cheque bearing No.582445 for Rs.50,000,00/-. However though the concerned bank cleared the amount covered under the said cheque. But, the entire amount was not credited to the complainant account. First opposite party had credited Rs.5,00,000/- on 29-5-2007 and remaining amount of Rs.45,00,000/- was credited on 1-6-2007. The complainant came to know that first opposite party instead of crediting the entire cheque amount on 29-5-2007 to the aforesaid account, the same was credited in part on different dates to complainant aforesaid account. The complainant left with no other option they got issued a legal notice dated 9-7-2009 to both the opposite parties calling upon the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation/damages. 2. The opposite parties has filed defense version stating that, it is true that complainant on 29-5-2007 had deposited a cheque bearing No.582445 for Rs.50,00,000/-. It is submitted that by inadvertence, a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- was credited to the account instead of a sum of Rs.50,00,000/-. However, this mistake was noticed immediately and the same was rectified as soon as it was noticed on 1-6-2007, by crediting the balance of Rs.45,00,000/-. It is however false to state that the complainant had intimated the same to this opposite party. This opposite party on its own, corrected the mistake, immediately, after the same was noticed, within two days. It is submitted that the complainant has filed this complaint after a lapse of two years, hence it is barred by time, on this count itself the complaint may be dismissed. 3. The respective parties have filed affidavit evidence. Both the parties have filed Written Arguments. Heard the arguments on both the sides. 4. In the light of the arguments advanced by the learned Advocates for the respective parties, the following points arise for consideration:- 1. Whether the complainant has proved deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party? 2. Whether the complaint is barred by time? REASONS 5. It is admitted case of the complainant, that he had deposited cheque for Rs.50,00,000/- on 29-5-2007 with the opposite party bank. On 29-5-2007 an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- had been credited to the account of complainant and on 1-6-2007 balance amount of Rs.45,00,000/- was credited to the account of the complainant. This fact is admitted case. The complainant filed his complaint before these fora on 15-9-2009, after 2 years of the so called deficiency of service committed by the opposite party bank. The complainant had issued legal notice to the opposite party on 9-7-2009. This legal notice is also after lapse of 2 years from 1-6-2007. The cause of action arose to the complaint to file complaint against the opposite party on 1-6-2007 from that date he could have file complaint within 2 years. Therefore, the complaint filed is beyond the period of limitation. Under Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act complaint filed after 2 years of the cause of action can not be entertained by the District Forum. The complainant admittedly has not filed application for condonation of delay. Therefore, on this point itself the complaint is liable to be dismissed as time barred. The complainant is customer of the opposite party, no doubt there is 2 days delay on the part of the opposite party to credit entire amount of the cheque. The opposite party has admitted the mistake in the defense version. The opposite party after coming to know the lapse had immediately taken steps in crediting entire cheque amount to the account of the complainant. The complainant has not put any loss. The opposite party should have regretted for the mistake and lapse on their part. The opposite party should be very careful in future in dealing with financial matters of the customers. The complainant is the honored customer of the opposite party bank. He should not be put to unnecessary tension and inconvenience. The customer satisfaction should be looked into by the service provider. The customer is said to be King he is not dependent on the opposite party bank. On the other hand the service providers are dependent on the customers. Therefore, the opposite party bank should express regret for the lapse on their part in not crediting entire cheque amount at once. With this observation the complaint is liable to be dismissed on the point of limitation itself. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:- ORDER 6. The complaint is dismissed. No order as to cost. 7. Send the copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately. 8. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 19TH DAY OF MAY 2010. Order accordingly, PRESIDENT We concur the above findings. MEMBER MEMBER
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.
