Per Sri A. Hazarath Rao,  President:-

        The complainant filed this complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act seeking Rs.64,000/- towards compensation; Rs.30,000/- towards damages for mental agony; Rs.130/- towards court fee besides costs.

2.   In brief the averments of the complaint are these:

The complainant worked as Professor and Vice Principal in the college of 2^nd opposite party. As per the instructions of 2^nd opposite party the 1^st opposite party used to remit salaries of its employees into their respective accounts.   The complainant is having account with the opposite party bearing No.706510025000122.   The 1^st opposite party on 17-03-12 remitted Rs.64,000/- into the said account of the complainant towards final settlement of salary as per the instructions of 2^nd opposite party.   The 1^st opposite party on 19-03-12 reverted the said amount to the account of 2^nd opposite party without his instructions.   The opposite parties 1 and 2 gave vague replies when complainant approached them.   The complainant gave a notice to the opposite parties on 26-03-12 calling upon them to pay the said amount.  The opposite parties kept quite though received notice.  The conduct of the 1^st opposite party in reverting the amount to the credit of 2^nd opposite party amounted to deficiency of service.   The instructions given by the 1^st opposite party in reverting the amount was illegal and amounted to deficiency of service.  The complaint therefore be allowed.       

3.    The contention of the 1^st opposite party in brief is thus:

        The dispute probably relates to payment of wages and as such this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the dispute. The                          2^nd opposite party every month used to give a consolidate cheque towards payment of staff salaries along with list of staff details.                   On 15-03-12 the 1^st opposite party received letter from the                       2^nd opposite party along with two cheques bearing Nos.196840 and 197042 dated 15-03-12 for Rs.23,87,786/- to credit that amount to the accounts of staff as per list.  The 1^st opposite party on 15-03-12 remitted Rs.64,455/- into complainant’s account.   On 19-03-12 the      1^st opposite party received letter from the 2^nd opposite party stating that the amount payable to the complainant was erroneously included in the list and requested to reverse the amount of Rs.64,455/-.  Accordingly the 1^st opposite party reversed the said amount and credited the same into the account of 2^nd opposite party.  The 1^st opposite party did not commit any deficiency of service.  The complainant if really is entitled for the salary he could have approached the Industrial Tribunal but not this Forum.  Action of the 1^st opposite party in reversing the amount is as per the Banking practice and is not an unilateral decision.  The complainant is not entitled for compensation and interest as he did not incur any loss.  Rest of the allegations contra mentioned in the complaint are all false and are invented by him to suit complainant’s case.   

4.    The contention of the 2^nd opposite party in brief is thus:

        The complainant worked as Professor in the Department of CSE from 17-01-11 to 24-02-12 in the college of the 2^nd opposite party.  The 2^nd opposite party relieved the complainant from his duties on   24-02-12 at his request.   The opposite party paid salary to the complainant till the date of his retirement.    The 1^st opposite party remitted Rs.64,455/- to the account of the complainant as per the instructions of  2^nd opposite party.  Subsequently on 19-03-12 the                2^nd opposite party sent a letter stating that Rs.64,455/- was erroneously included the name of the complainant in the list of staff salaries and requested 1^st opposite party to reverse the said amount to its account.   The 2^nd opposite party was in fact is not at all due to the complainant by 24-02-12.   The complainant filed this complaint to have undue advantage of the said erroneous transaction.  The complaint therefore be dismissed.

5.  Exs.A-1 to A-6, Exs.B-1 to B-3 and Exs.B-4 to B-9 were marked on behalf of complainant and opposite parties 1 and 2 respectively.

6.     Now the points that arose for consideration in this case are:

1. Whether the opposite parties committed deficiency of service and if so by whom?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to compensation claimed?
3. To what relief?

7.  Admitted facts in this case are these:

1.   The complainant worked as professor of CSE in the college of              OP2 from 17-01-11 to 24-02-12 (Ex.B-8).

2. The complainant sought relievement of his duties from the                           2^nd opposite party who inturn relieved the complainant on                     24-02-12 (Exs.B-4 to B-6).

3. The complainant had no dues to the 2^nd opposite party.

4. The 2^nd opposite party used to give cheque to the 1^st opposite                      party towards salaries who in turn used to credit them into               the respective accounts of staff.

5.   The 1^st opposite party remitted RS.64,455/- into the account               of the complainant as per the list submitted by the

        2^nd opposite party (Ex.B-1).

6.  The 2^nd opposite party addressed Ex.B-2 letter on 19-03-12                  to reverse the same from SB account of the complainant                      and credit it to the account of the said college.

7.   The complainant approached ombudsman on 30-05-12 and                  the same was disposed off on 23-08-12 (Ex.B-3).

8.  POINT No.1:-   The entire dispute revolves whether the reversal of Rs.64,455/- from the complainant’s account to the account of                     M/s Nalanda Institute of Technology is justifiable.   It is not the case of the complainant that the 2^nd opposite party has to pay remuneration/salary for the services done by him.  Ex.B-2 letter dated              19-03-12 is in between the opposite parties and it has nothing to do with the complainant.  Copy of Ex.B-2 was not sent to the complainant.  Therefore the complainant has nothing to do with                  Ex.B-2 letter as rightly contended by him.

9.  The 1^st opposite party on 16-03-12 remitted Rs.64,455/- to the complainant’s account as seen from Ex.A-2.   Likewise in Ex.A-2 the  1^st opposite party on 19-03-12 had shown that Rs.64,455/- was withdrawn by the complainant.   Ex.A-2 further revealed that the said debited entry of Rs.64,455/- was as per request of the college.

10.   It is not the case of the opposite parties that it issued notice to the complainant before reversing the entry on 19-03-12.   It is not the case of the 2^nd opposite party also that it issued notice to the complainant that Rs.64,455/- was wrongly included in the list sent to the 1^st opposite party.

11.   It is not the dispute of wages between the 2^nd opposite party and the complainant as contended by the 1^st opposite party.  Therefore the said contention is devoid of merit.  The 2^nd opposite party is not at all necessary to decide the dispute herein.  The 2^nd opposite party can recover Rs.64,455/- from the complainant under the provisions of Contract Act if felt that complainant had unjust enrichment.

12.   The deficiency of service is committed by the 1^st opposite party alone in reversing the amount from the complainant’s account without his knowledge.   Therefore the 1^st opposite party has to pay the amount to the complainant.  The 2^nd opposite party in our considered did not commit any deficiency of service.   We therefore answer this point against the 1^st opposite party.

13.  POINT No.2:-    The complainant claimed Rs.30,000/- as damages towards mental agony.    The 1^st opposite party under a bonafide impression acted on Ex.B-2 letter of the 2^nd opposite party.  Under those circumstances, awarding nominal damages of Rs.2,000/- will meet ends of justice.   We therefore answer this point accordingly in favour of complainant. 

14.  POINT No.3:-   In view of above findings in the result the complaint is partly allowed as indicated below:

        1.  The 1^st opposite party is directed to pay Rs.64,455/- (Rupees               sixty four thousand, four hundred and fifty five only) together   with interest (applicable to SB account) from 16-03-12 till   payment.

        2. The 1^st opposite party is directed to pay Rs.2,000/- (Rupees          two thousand only) as damages to the complainant.

        3. The 1^st opposite party is directed to pay Rs.1,000/- (Rupees          one thousand only) as costs to the complainant.

        4.  The claim against 2^nd opposite party is dismissed with costs        of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) payable by the    complainant.

        5.  The above order shall be complied within a period of six              weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order.

            Typed to my dictation by Junior Steno, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum dated this the 28^th day of September, 2012.

MEMBER                                                                       PRESIDENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Complainant:

For 1^st opposite party: 

For 2^nd opposite party: 

        PRESIDENT