BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM<br /> VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM<br /> PRESENT:<br /> <br /> SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT<br /> SMT. BEENA KUMARI .A : MEMBER<br /> SMT. S.K. SREELA : MEMBER<br /> <br /> O.P.No. 358/2004 Filed on 16..09..2004 <br /> Dated: 16..06..2008<br /> Complainant:<br /> Dr. MSN. Balasubramaniyan, 4/169 Ambala Nagar Extn, Kowdiar – P.O., Trivandrum – 3.<br /> Opposite party:<br /> The Manager, H.S.B.C, Vellayambalam, Trivandrum.<br /> (By Adv. Sri. P. Krishnankutty Nair) <br /> This O.P having been heard on 08..05..2008, the Forum on 16..06..2008 delivered the following:<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT : <br /> <br /> The case of the complainant is that, the complainant opened several accounts like Smart Money Account, Savings Account, Credit Cards, Current Account with opposite party. The said accounts were opened in trust with International Reputations & Names of the Bankers. Complainant deposited a DD for Rs.25, 215/- in his account on 1st July, 2004. The said money should have been available in the ATM on 05..07..2004. Till 18th July 2004 the money was not available to the complainant. This failure of the Bank has resulted in the loss of the complainant's business to the tune of Rs.18,000/-. Opposite party had illegally retained complainant's money and violated RBI norms. The complainant had experienced another incident. On 9th January the complainant deposited Rs.500/- in his credit card account. The remittance was done through ATM. The remittance was made through a cheque from Canara Bank. Opposite party had collected the money from other Bank, the said money was not deposited in the account of the complainant. Hence opposite party has committed deficiency in service. Hence this complaint claiming Rs.18,000/- for the damages of complainant's business due to the negligence and deficiency in service of the opposite party and Rs.10,000/- towards compensation and Rs.10,000/- towards cost of the complaint.<br /> <br /> 2. Opposite party entered appearance and filed version contending that complainant deposited DD for Rs.25,215/- in the account of the complainant at the branch of opposite party's bank in Chennai. The said DD was drawn by HDFC Bank, Annasalai, Chennai payable to Jayasree Metals, Account No. 092-137595-001 maintained to the complainant at the branch of HSBC in Thiruvananthapuram. Had this draft been dropped in the branch of opposite party's bank at Thiruvananthapuram the clearance of this draft should have been done within a day or two from the date of submission as the draft is payable at Thiruvananthapuram. Instead of submitting the draft at the branch office at Thiruvananthapuram, the complainant deposited the said draft at the office of opposite party bank in Chennai. This deliberate omission of the complainant caused delay in getting credit in his account. Therefore the draft in question could not be processed through clearing house. It can only be sent for collection through normal channel from Chennai to Thiruvananthapuram. The funds were credited to the account on 14th July 2004, which was well within the time taken for clearance if any outstation cheque. Further the cheque for Rs.500/- deposited by the complainant could not be credited in his credit card account. Because in the said cheque the credit card number was mentioned by the complainant as 4563420000890038. This is not the credit card of the complainant. The credit card number of the complainant is 4563420000876038. The correct number was intimated subsequently to the complainant and the said amount of Rs. 500/- has been subsequently credited in the credit card account. The alleged delay is due to the fault of the complainant. The dispute with regard to the transaction of Rs.271.37 is not found a place in the credit card account. Hence there is no deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant for any of the transactions referred above. So opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint with cost.<br /> <br /> 3. The points that would arise for consideration are:<br /> <br /> (i)Whether there has been deficiency in service on the part of opposite party?<br /> (ii)Reliefs and Costs?<br /> <br /> 4. To support the contention in the complaint, complainant has filed an affidavit of himself as PW1 and Exts. P1 to P7 were marked. No evidence adduced by the opposite party.<br /> <br /> 5. Points (i) & (ii): At the outset it should be mentioned that complainant has never pleaded his case properly in the complaint. The affidavit filed by the complainant never explains the real facts in issue. Arguments of the complainant are without pleadings. We cannot go outside the pleadings in the complaint and it is the case pleaded that has to be found. Submission by the complainant is that complainant had opened several accounts like Smart Money account, Savings account, Credit Cards, Current account with opposite party. The account numbers are not seen mentioned in the complaint. The case of the complainant is that complainant deposited a DD for Rs.25,215/- in his account on 1st July 2004. Till 18th July the said money was not available to him. Due to the delay in encashment of the said DD, complainant had incurred loss in his business to the tune of Rs. 18,000/-. Main thrust of argument advanced by the complainant is that opposite party had illegally retained complainant's money and violated RBI norms causing loss in his business. Complainant never mentioned the said DD number, the name of the drawer bank, the place where the said DD payable etc in the complaint. At least complainant should specify the account number in which the said DD was deposited, whether the said DD was deposited with opposite party bank or with opposite party's branch bank. It is apparent from the version that complainant deposited DD for Rs. 25,215/- in the account of the complainant at the branch of opposite party bank in Chennai. Main thrust of argument advanced by the opposite party counsel appearing for opposite party is that the said DD was drawn by HDFC Bank, Annasalai, Chennai payable to Jayasree Metals Account No. 092-137595-001 maintained by the complainant at the branch of HSBC in Thiruvananthapuram. The said DD is payable at Thiruvananthapuram. Submission by the counsel appearing for opposite party is that had this DD been dropped in the branch of this opposite party in Thiruvananthapuram the clearance of the said DD should have been done within a day or two from the date of submission as the draft is payable at Thiruvananthapuram. Instead of submitting the draft at the branch office of the opposite party at Thiruvananthapuram, the draft payable at Thiruvananthapuram through clearing house at Thiruvananthapuram, the said draft was deposited at the office of this opposite party in Chennai. It has been contended by the opposite party that the delay in getting credit in complainant's account is due to the deliberate omission on the part of complainant. Therefore the said DD could not be processed through clearing house. It can only be sent for collection through normal channel from Chennai to Thiruvananthapuram. Submission by the opposite party is that the said funds were credited to the account on 14th July 2004, which was well within time taken for clearance if any outstation cheque”. It has been further contended by opposite party that the alleged delay could have been avoided had the complainant prudently presented the said DD at the branch office at Thiruvananthapuram, instead of at Chennai. Complainant had never specified in the complaint in which account of the complainant the said DD was deposited. The copy of the said DD is not seen produced before this Forum. The onus of proving that the said DD (number not mentioned) was deposited in opposite party bank at Vellayambalam would lay on the complainant. Ext.P4 is the copy of statement of account dated 9th August, 2004 issued by the opposite party. As per Ext.P4, an amount of Rs.25,215 is even credited to the account of M/s. Jayasree Metals on 14th July 2004, the account number is 092-137595-001. Complainant never denied the averment in the version that the said DD drawn by HDFC Bank was deposited by the complainant in the account of the complainant at the branch of opposite party bank at Chennai in his affidavit by way of evidence filed by the complainant. No material on record to show that complainant had deposited the said DD with opposite party bank at Vellayambalam. In this absence of evidence both oral and documentary, we are in no position to attribute deficiency in service on the part of opposite party for the delay in clearance of the said DD. Complainant alleged illegal detention of money by the opposite party by focussing another incident. Submission by the complainant is that complainant had deposited a cheque for Rs.500/- in his credit card account, but the said cheque was not credited by the opposite party. It is pertinent to note that complainant had never mentioned the cheque number and credit card number in his complaint or his affidavit. Submission of opposite party's counsel is that a cheque bearing No.293059 for Rs. 500/- could not be credited in credit card account of the complainant, because the credit card number mentioned by the complainant was 4563420000890038 instead of the credit card number 4563420000876038. Ext.P6 shows the photocopy of ATM Customer Advice issued by the opposite party. As per Ext.P4 the account number is 4563420000890038 complainant had never denied the averment in the version by cogent evidence. On going through the complaint and version, evidence on record and hearings, we hold that the complaint has no merit at all. Complainant has failed to establish the complaint which deserves to be dismissed.<br /> <br /> In the result, complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs.<br /> <br /> A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.<br /> Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, this the 16th day of June, 2008.<br /> <br /> <br /> G. SIVAPRASAD,<br /> PRESIDENT.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> BEENA KUMARI .A : MEMBER <br /> <br /> <br /> S.K. SREELA : MEMBER <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> OP.No. 358/2004<br /> APPENDIX<br /> <br /> I.Complainant's witness: NIL<br /> II.Complainant's documents:<br /> P1 : Photocopy of letter dated 23..03..2002 issued to the opposite party by the complainant.<br /> P2 : Photocopy of letter dated 11..02..2002 addressed to the opposite party.<br /> P3 : Photocopy of reply letter dated 28.11.2001.<br /> P4 : Photocopy of statement of accounts dated 09.08.2004<br /> P5 : Photocopy of letter dated 25..06..2004.<br /> P6 : Photocopy of mini statement – Canara Bank receipts dated 12..01..2004 and 04..07..2004 <br /> P7 : Photocopy of circular <br /> <br /> III. Opposite party's witness: NIL<br /> <br /> IV. Opposite party's documents: NIL<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT.