Complaint filed on: 14-10-2010
Disposed on: 31-01-2011
BEFORE THE BANGALORE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT, NO.8, SAHAKARA BHAVAN, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 052
C.C.No.2373/2010
DATED THIS THE 31st JANUARY 2011
PRESENT
SRI.D.KRISHNAPPA., PRESIDENT
SRI.GANGANARASAIAH, MEMBER
SMT.ANITA SHIVAKUMAR.K., MEMBER
Complainant: -
Sri.Domnic Sagairaj,
Sri.Mani, aged about 45 years,
R/at No.38, 2nd Cross,
Maruthi Nagar, Madivala,
Bangalore - 68
V/s
Opposite party: -
The Manager,
Rept by its Manager,
The Federal Bank Ltd,
Tavarekere branch,
No.104/1, Ground floor,
1st Main, Tavarekere,
Bangalore
O R D E R
SRI. D.KRISHNAPPA., PRESIDENT.,
The grievance of the complainant against the opposite party [herein after called as OP] in brief is, that he is having an SB account with OP having regular transaction. That on 8-9-2010 he remitted cash of Rs.2,90,000/- to his account through various denominations. That he came to know from his mini statement from ATM on 11-9-2010, the OP has debited Rs. 42,000/- from his account, which was surprising and shocking to him. That he was unable to contact the OP on 11-9-2010, therefore approached OP on 13-9-2010 and gave a letter to re-credit Rs.42,000/- to his account by reversing debiting. OP when did not the reverse entry, he got issued a legal notice on 3-8-2010 for the same request, but the OP has not done the reversing and therefore attributing deficiency to the OP has prayed for a direction to the OP to deposit Rs.42,000/- to his account with interest at 18% per annum and also to pay damages of Rs.20,000/- and to award cost.
2. OP has appeared through his advocate and filed version, admitting the complainant maintaining an account in his branch and remitting Rs.2,90,000/- by him to his account in their branch on 8-9-2010. It is further contended by the OP that notes of different denomination were not properly sorted as they were mixed together, the cashier because of that got confused and assuming, the complainant had remitted an excess amount of Rs.42,000/- had returned Rs.42,000/- through notes of Rs.1000/- denomination without tallying the entire cash and on the same day at the end of business hours, they found shortage of Rs.42,000/- in the cash balance. Then the cashier informed the Assistant Manager about giving back Rs.42,000/- to the complainant assuming it was an excessive remittance. Then they verified the CCTV camera which recorded the entire process and saw that the complainant had remitted only Rs.2,90,000/-, there was no excess and that return of Rs.42,000/- by the cashier to the complainant was wrong. Then they reversed the credit entry of the complainant and on the same day tried to contact the complainant, but they could not, then they through the introducer of the complainant namely one Jagannatha.M informed the complainant about the mistake and also sent a communication in this regard. It is further stated that on 14-9-2010 the complainant gave a letter to them to reverse the debit entire and the complainant was secured to their branch played CCTVE recording, the complainant was convinced and had voluntarily signed the balance confirmation letter on 17-9-2010 agreeing to the balance amount of Rs.2.51 lakhs without disputing the debiting of Rs.42,000/- and therefore stated that the complaint is not bonafide and submitted for dismissal of the same.
3. In the course of enquiry into the complaint, the complainant and OP have filed their affidavit evidence reproducing what they have stated in their respective complaint and version. The complainant alongwith the complaint has produced a copy of counter foil of the challan, copy of mini bank statement, copy of the letter he had addressed to the OP on 13-9-2010 and copy of a legal notice he got issued to OP on 16-10-2010. OP has produced the original counter foil, bank challan, CD of CCTV of the transactions date, reply they had sent to legal notice of the complainant and a copy of the balance confirmation letter executed by the complainant. We have heard counsel for both parties and perused the records.
4. On the above contentions following points for determination arise.
1) Whether the complainant proves that the OP has caused deficiency in his service by debiting Rs.42,000/- to his account?
2) To what reliefs, the complainant is entitled to?
5. Our findings are as under:
Point no.1: In the negative
Point no.2: See the final Order
REASONS
6. Answer on Point No.1: On going through the contentions of the parties and the documents produced by both parties, we find no controversy between them, with regard to this complainant remitting Rs.2,90,000/- to his account maintained in the OP branch on 8-9-2010. The complainant by alleging simple case of deficiency as simply stated that he had remitted Rs.2,90,000/- to his account in the OP bank on 8-9-2010. Then he through his ATM mini bank statement found that the OP on the same day debited of Rs.42,000/- from his account and thereby alleged that debiting is wrong without any reasons that amounts to deficiency and thus has prayed for a direction to the OP to refund him that Rs.42,000/-. The complainant when he gave a letter in this regarding to the OP on 17-9-2010 has just narrated the said debiting and through legal notice dated 16-9-2010 also he has just made that allegation of debiting without referring to refund of any amount to him by the cashier on 8-9-2010. This suppression of fact and the silence of the complainant has exposed the malafide intention of the complainant in filing this complaint which shall be high lighted in the course of this order.
7. The OP in his version and also affidavit evidence has referred to the transaction dated 8-9-2010 and stated that the complainant had tendered Rs.2,90,000/- to the cashier, denominations were not sorted, were therefore mixed, then the cashier without tallying the cash wrongly assuming that the complainant had tendered Rs.42,000/- in excess of Rs.2,90,000/- had return to the complainant Rs.42,000/-. But on tallying the transaction of that day, they found that return of Rs.42,000/- to the complainant on 8-9-2010 was wrong and therefore justified their action in debiting that amount. The OP in support of these developments and as to what happened in the counter on that day has produced a CD of CCTV installed in their branch and CD was played before this forum in presence of the counsel for both parties, we have viewed the CCTV CD and found in the denomination tendering of cash by the complainant to the cashier with a filled up challan, which was of different denomination, were not sorted out the cashier had to sort out denomination and kept the cash on his table and the cashier was found was because of his inexperience or inability in handling the counter was in confusive state. We have also viewed the cashier returning some cash to the complainant. The counsel representing the complainant, in the course of argument of this complaint also admitted that the complainant on 8-9-2010 received back cash of Rs.42,000/- from the cashier of the OP branch. It is surprising to note that the complainant never disclosed receipt of Rs.40,000/- or 42,000/- from the cashier on 8-9-2010 from out of Rs.2,90,000/- remitted by him. If the complainant were to be honest he ought to have mentioned the same in his letter dated 13-10-2010 addressed to the OP, in his legal notice sent to the OP and atleast in the present complaint. Added to this, the complainant went to the branch of the OP and signed the balance confirmation letter on 17-9-2010 confirming his balance Rs.2,51,000/- which is arrived after taking into consideration of debiting of Rs.42,000/- on 8-9-2010. If the complainant was not accepting the debiting of Rs.42,000/- by the OP on 8-9-2010, he ought to have not signed confirmation of the balance letter dated 17-9-2010. All these developments that is admission of receiving Rs.42,000/- from the cashier from out of Rs.2,90,000/- remitted by him, viewing CCTV in the branch of the OP, then confirmation of balance are all suppressed by the complainant and filed this complaint to make out a case against the OP by simply stating that he remitted of Rs.2,90,000/- on 8-9-2010 and the OP has debited Rs.42,000/- out of which without any reason and therefore alleged it is deficiency in the service of the OP. If the complainant had disclosed receipt of Rs.42,000/- and subsequent developments, he would not have had case to come before this forum.
8. The complainant and his counsel have not denied the correctness of CCTV recording which was played before us, in the course of arguments of the complaint. They have also not denied receipt of Rs.42,000/- from the cashier on 8-9-2010 out of Rs.2,90,000/- when that is so how does the complainant answer about receipt of Rs.42,000/- from the cashier on that day, which money was that, whose money was that, why it was given to him and towards what claim or due, he received that amount is to be answered by him. But the complainant has no answer for all these. He without disputing pocketing of Rs.42,000/- from out of Rs.2,90,000/- when it was returned to him, he exhibited silence and alleged that debiting of Rs.42,000/- is a deficient act. It is not his case that he on 8-9-2010 though intended to remit Rs.2,90,000/- to his account but tendered more cash that is in all Rs.3,32,000/, then out of which the cashier had returned Rs.42,000/- and therefore it was his money. Admittedly he had filled up the challan shown the amount remitted as Rs.2,90,000/- only and handed over the challan and cash to the cashier. The complainant had brought the money for remittance that shows he came prepared to remit Rs.2,90,000/- and had not tendered more than that, it is not as if the complainant took out some cash from out of large quantum of money, he had, without counting it and handed over to the cashier, who after checking refunded the excess money. All these materials un-erroringly prove that the cashier of OP bank because of his negligence did commit mistake of refund of Rs.42,000/- without properly checking and tallying, and that OP latter on realized the mistake and has reversed credit entry which is in our view is with in the purview of the bank and that has been rightly done, but this does not mean that the OP and his men are licensed to act in this inefficient way as the cashier of OP acted and cause inconvenience to the customers and handle public money erotically. Here we found it necessary to invite the attention of OP authority to view the CD of CCTV recorded on 8-9-2010 to understand the insufficient handling of cash and customers by them then cashier and to take measure to correct by training such official. With this, we find that the complaint lack merits and is not bonafide. Further the complainant has come up with this false complaint with full of mis-representation, which is to be checked by imposing cost besides dismissal. Hence, we answer point no.1 in the negative and pass the following order.
ORDER
Complaint is dismissed with cost of Rs.3,000/- payable to the OP.
Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, Pronounced on the Open Forum on this 31st January 2011.
Member Member President
