DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD
Dated this the 22nd day of December, 2023
Present : Sri. Vinay Menon V., President
: Smt. Vidya A., Member
: Sri. Krishnankutty N.K., Member Date of Filing: 26/05/2020
CC/50/2020
Padmini,
W/o. E.Govindan,
Kootupatha, Mundur,
Palakkad – 678 592 - Complainant
(By Adv. M/s M.P.Ravi & M.J. Vince)
Vs
- The Manager,
State Bank of India,
Mundur Branch, Palakkad.
- Usha Ramachandran,
W/o.Ramachandran,
Meleyil House,
Near ITC, Kootupatha, Mundur,
Palakkad – 678 592.
- Maithili,
D/o.M.P. Kumaran,
Vishnubadhra,
Ganesh Nagar,
Kalpathy, Palakkad.
- Sobhana,
W/o.K.T.Chandran,
Anju Nivas,
Kootupatha, Mundur,
Palakkad – 678 592. - Opposite parties
(O.P.1 by Adv. P.V. Beena
O.P.s 2 to 4 by Adv. Rajesh Panangad)
O R D E R
By Sri. Vinay Menon V., President
- Essence of the pleadings, necessary to adjudicate the complaint, is that the Complainant, a former Treasurer and running Committee member of a temple committee claims to be one of the 3 joint bank account holders of a bank account opened for the purpose of welfare of one Mundur Sree Narasimha Murthy Temple. O.P.1 is the bank and O.P.s 2 to 4 are the present President, Secretary and Treasurer respectively of the said committee. Incidentally, O.P.s 2 and 3 were the joint account holders along with the complainant.
Due to difference between the complainant and the O.P.s, the complainant resigned from the committee on 04/09/2019 and intimated the 1st O.P. on 25/11/2019 to remove her name from the account. But the O.P. 1 refused to heed to her request and directed all 3 joint account holders to effect an application. But O.P.s 2 and 3 were unwilling to close the account and had carried out operations behind her back. On 02/12/2019, the complainant executed an account closure form of the above account and handed it over to the O.P.s 2 and 3, but the said account was not closed and operations continued with O.P.s 2, 3 and 4 as joint account holders. There was misappropriation of money. Aggrieved by the non-closure of the account and continuing operation of the said account, this complaint is filed against the O.P.s seeking compensation for deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.s.
2. O.P.1 filed version contesting that the account was in the joint names of the complainant and O.P.s 2 and 3 and later it was switched to ‘any two account holders’ operation mode. Account was not closed by the O.P.1 as no two account holders had granted sanction for closure of the account. At the time of opening of the account, mode of operation was not specified by the joint holders. There is no collusion between the O.P.1 and other account holders.
3. O.P.s 2 to 4 filed joint version. They submitted that there are no illegalities or irregularities whatsoever in the conduct of the committee and operation of the pecuniary transactions and maintenance of the accounts are transparent. Over and above the account maintained in the 1st O.P. bank, the committee had another bank account in Mundur Service Co-operative Bank. Subsequent to the resignation, the complainant refused to co-operate with the committee in substituting the name of the incumbent Secretary with that of the complainant. Amounts maintained in the O.P.1’s account was therefore transferred into the account of the Mundur Service Co-operative Bank so as to avoid any hitch to the peaceful operation of the temple. The complainant is continuously fomenting disruptions in the peaceful conduct of the temple.
4. The following issues arise for consideration.
1. Whether the complainant has locus-standi to file this complaint?
2. Whether the complaint is maintainable as against the O.P.s 2 to 4?
3. Whether the non-closure of the account is illegal?
4. Whether the Bank was competent to switch operation of account to ‘any two account holders’ mode?
5. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.s?
6. Whether the complainant is entitled to any of the reliefs sought for?
7. Any other reliefs?
5. 1. Evidence of the complainant comprised of depositions of complainant as PW1
and Exts. A1 to A20. Marking of Exts. A10 and 11 were objected to on the ground that they were photocopies.
Marking of Ext. A20 is objected to on the ground it is a complaint issued to the Registrar and should be subject to proof. Since this Commission is not bound by the Evidence Act and as the O.P.s has not case that the documents so objected are forged or concocted, they are taken in evidence overlooking the objections raised by O.P.s.
2. O.P.1 filed proof affidavit, but did not file or mark any documents. Since witness for O.P.1 was not present, their evidence was closed.
3. O.P.s 2 to 3 filed proof affidavit and marked Exts. B1 to B4. I.A. 267/2023 filed by the complainant seeking to cross examine the O.P.s 2 to 4 were dismissed on 16/08/2023.
Issue no. 1
6. On a perusal of the pleadings in the memorandum of complaint as well as the documents marked by the complainant, the initial question, that we feel necessary to be answered is whether the complainant is a “Complainant” as contemplated under the Consumer Protection Act for the purpose of filing this complaint.
7. In order to adjudicate this issue, we need to peruse the relevant pleadings raised by the complainant in paragraphs 2, 5, 6 and 7 in the memorandum of complaint:
Paragraph 2: The opposite party No-1 is the bank where the Kshethra Samithi is having the account, the opposite party No-2 is the President, opposite party No-3 is the Treasurer and opposite party No-4 is the Jt. Secretary and the new Secretary of the Samithi now.
Paragraph 5: As per bye-law approved by the Members, meeting was conducted on 30/12/2015, the Treasurer was entrusted with the duty of the funds belonging to the temple and saving account was opened jointly in the names of President, Secretary and
Treasurer of the Samithi in the bank of the 1st opposite party.
Paragraph 6: All the financial matters are to be strictly dealt with as per the bye-law. If any expenses are incurred it has to be paid only as per the bye-law of the samithi.
And further permission of the committee is required in writing and also obtained prior permission and approval of the committee to manage the funds such as depositing and withdrawal of the money from the bank. The complainant herein was entrusted with the management of the accounts and funds of the temple committee prior to the formation of the Samithi and as per the request of the members she was doing it even after the formation of the Samithi exactly as per the rules and regulations of the Samithi. The complainant was doing it with utmost sincerely and no one has ever complaint of her of management of funds of the temple, the committee or the Samithi.
Paragraph 7: And further the Samithi opened a joint savings bank account in the name of President, Secretary and Treasurer in SBI, Mundur Branch i.e. with the 1st opposite party with the account No.67324881802. It was opened in the name of complainant, opposite party No.2 and opposite party No-3 only.
8. In her deposition, to the questions asked by the counsel for O.P.s 2 to 4, the complainant has unambiguously answered as follows:
Lines 1 & 2 in Page 4 : “A/c ക്ഷേത്ര സമിതിയുടെ പൊതു ഉദ്ദേശത്തിനുള്ളതാണ്. ജനങ്ങള് നല്കിയ സംഭാവനയാണ് ഇതില് നിക്ഷേപിച്ചിട്ടുള്ളത്.”
Lines 20 & 21 in Page 4 : “ഈ അക്കൌണ്ടിലെ പണത്തിന് വ്യക്തിപരമായി ഒരു അവകാശവുമില്ല.”
9. Thus we can see that the account bearing number 67324881802 in the 1st O.P. bank is opened for maintenance of the amounts deposited by devotees for devotional purposes and allied matters in connection with the temple. The account was never meant to be used for the personal purposes of the complainant. Sri Narasimhamurthy Kshetra Samrakshana Samithy is the consumer of the services rendered by the 1st O.P. and not the complainant.
Per pleadings, the complainant is a signatory to the Account in her capacity of Treasurer of the Samithy. The complainant had not availed any services for herself. She was only acting for and on behalf of the Samithy in her capacity as the Treasurer. Thus the complainant has not availed any services and she is not a complainant as contemplated under the Act.
10. If at all there is any grievance as against the 1st O.P., it ought to have been filed by the Samithy in accordance with its byelaws.
11. Resultantly we hold that the complainant has no locus standi to file this case. Accordingly, this complaint is not maintainable before this Commission.
Issue Nos. 2 to 6
12. In view of the finding above, we are not resorting to a discussion of the pleadings and evidence adduced by the parties. These issues are being left out.
Issue No. 7
13. In the facts and circumstances of the case, and considering the fact that the complainant is an aged woman of around 70 years of age, we are not imposing a cost on the complainant. Parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.
14. With the above findings and observations, we dismiss the complaint.
Pronounced in open court on this the 22nd day of December, 2023. Sd/-
Vinay Menon V
President
Sd/-
Vidya.A
Member
Sd/- Krishnankutty N.K.
Member
APPENDIX
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant
Ext.A1 - Copy of Bye-laws
Ext.A2 – Copy of communication dated 25/11/2019
Ext.A3 – Copy of account opening form
Ext.A4 – Copy of statement of account
Ext.A5 – Original of Ext.A2
Ext.A6 – Copy of standard format for account closure
Ext.A7 – Copy of query under RTI Act dated 13/1/2020
Ext.A8 – Original reply dated 18/2/2020 under RTI Act.
Ext.A9 – Copy of Communication dated 28/1/2020
Ext.A10 - Copy of query under RTI Act dated 29/2/2020
Ext.A11 – Copy of appeal dated 29/2/2020 under RTI Act
Ext.A12 – Copy of query dated 3/3/2020 under RTI Act
Ext.A13 – Original reply dated 27/3/2020
Ext.A14 - Original of reply dated 24/4/2020 under RTI Act
Ext.A15 – Original communication dated 15/5/2020
Ext.A16 – Copy of appeal dated 25/5/2020 under RTI Act
Ext.A17 – Original communication dated 4/6/2020
Ext.A18 – Copy of communication dated 28/9/2020
Ext.A19 – Original communication dated 17/11/2020
Ext.A20 - Copy of complaint dated 29/1/2020 filed before Dist.Registrar (Gen)
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party:
Ext.B1 – Copy of communication dated 19/12/2019
Ext.B2 – Original communication dated 17/1/2019
Ext.B3 – Copy of communication dated 11/7/2019
Ext.B4 – Copy of communication dated 30/12/2019
Court Exhibit:
Nil
Third party documents: Nil
Witness examined on the side of the complainant
PW1 - Padmini (Complainant)
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party :
Nil
Court Witness:
Nil
NB : Parties are directed to take back all extra set of documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5) of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 failing which they will be weeded out.
