Date of Filing : 08.04.2010
Date of Order : 09.09.2011
BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER
DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
SESHADRIPURAM, BANGALORE – 560 020
Dated 9th SEPTEMBER 2011
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. 778 / 2010
A.S. Shivanandaiah,
No. 56, 1st Main Road,
B.M. Guttahalli, Malleswaram,
Bangalore – 560 003. ……. Complainant
V/s.
1. The Manager,
Union Bank of India, PESSE Extn. Counter,
Near Electronic City, Hosur Road,
Bangalore – 560 100.
2. The Principal,
P.E.S. College of Engineering,
Hosur Road,
Bangalore – 560 100. …… Opposite Parties
ORDER
(By the President Sri. S.S. Nagarale)
This Complaint is filed by the Complainant u/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the salary of Complainant for November 2008 remitted by OP2 on the last working day of November 2008 was not credited to his account by OP1. Complainant has opened fresh S.B. Account in OP1 Bank. OP1 told the Complainant that OP2 has not remitted the salary from November 2008 onwards. After confirming the remittances made by OP2 regularly from November 2008 to March 2009, Complainant was able to find out in one small exercise book month-wise remittances from November 2008 to February 2009. OP1 had given credit of Rs.19,092/- to the Complainant’s account belatedly after lapse of more than 4 months. Salary being only the source of income, the Complainant had to undergo number of difficulties apart from suffering mental agony. Therefore, Complainant has claimed relief of Rs.45,000/- against the Ops.
3. OP1 filed version stating that OP1 several times has asked the Complainant to open separate account with them in order to make remittance of salary in time by OP2. Complainant did not open S.B. Account with OP1 and opened the same on 12.01.2009. Thus OP1 could not remit the salary remitted by OP2 for the said reasons of delay of opening S.B. Account with OP1. OP1 is not responsible for the delay of remittances. After having followed banking procedures, entire salary amount remitted by OP2 was credited to the Complainant’s account at the earliest possible time on 09.03.2009. Complainant has made similar allegations in Complaint No. 264/2010 and judgement has been passed by the Urban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Cauvery Bhavan, Bangalore. Even though OP filed their version & affidavit evidence, Complainant did not appear before the said Forum to adjudicate his rights by producing necessary material documents to substantiate his claim. Complainant has not shown any reasons why he is asking relief of Rs.45,000/-. There is no deficiency of service on the part of OP1. Therefore, OP1 requested to dismiss the Complaint.
4. OP2 has filed separate version stating that Complainant temporarily worked as Boys Hostel Warden at P.E.S. School of Engineering at Hosur Road from 20.10.2008 to 25.04.2009 on a consolidation salary of Rs.5,000/- per month. After deductions, his net salary was deposited with OP1 every month. Complainant is not entitled for any kind of relief. Hence, OP2 prayed to dismiss the Complaint.
5. Perused the pleadings and documents. Arguments are heard.
6. On perusal of the documents produced by OP2, Principal, P.E.S. School of Engineering, it is very clear that OP2 has remitted the salary of the Complainant every month from December 2008 to March 2009. The salary of 10 days for the month of November 2008 was credited on 1st of December 2008. Therefore, OP2 has not committed any deficiency of service. It is also admitted case of the Complainant that the entire salary of Rs.19,092/- had been credited to his account by OP1. As regards receipt of salary, there is absolutely no dispute. Complainant is making grievance against OP1 that there was delay in crediting the salary to his account. As per the Learned Counsel for the OP1, Complainant has filed similar Complaint before the Principal Forum i.e., Bangalore Urban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Cauvery Bhavan, Bangalore, in Complaint No. 264/2010 and OP had appeared there and filed the version & affidavit, but the Complainant did not adduce his evidence for adjudication of his rights. Therefore, the Learned Counsel for OP1 submitted that the Complaint filed by the present Complainant in Complaint No. 264/2010 had been dismissed. Therefore, he submitted that fresh Complaint before this Forum is not maintainable. Arguments of the Learned counsel for OP1 holds good. Complainant cannot go on filing fresh Complaint for the same cause of action or matter. Complainant should have produced his evidence in Compliant No. 264/2010 and proved deficiency of service there. Complainant could have filed Application before the District Consumer Forum, Cauvery Bhavan, Bangalore. Instead of that he has filed fresh Complaint before this Forum. Therefore, present Complaint is not maintainable. Even now also Complainant is at liberty to get the earlier Complaint restored and get the justice & relief in that Complaint. Fresh Complaint on the same cause of action is not maintainable. Therefore, on this legal point itself Complaint deserves to be dismissed. Secondly, if the Complainant has got any grievance against the Bank, he has to file his Complaint before the Banking Ombudsman constituted under the RBI guidelines. Banking Ombudsman is a proper & competent Authority to enquire into the matter and grant appropriate relief to the aggrieved party. So, on this ground also Complaint before this Forum is not maintainable. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
Complaint is dismissed as not maintainable. No order as to costs.
Complainant is at liberty to approach Banking Ombudsman constituted under the RBI guides.
Send copy of this Order to both the parties free of cost immediately.
Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 9th day of September 2011.
Order accordingly
PRESIDENT
We concur the above findings
MEMBER MEMBER
SSS
