BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD.



F.A.No. 419 OF 2007 AGAINST C.C. NO. 56 OF 2005 DISTRICT FORUM MEDAK AT SANGAREDDY





Between:

State Bank of Hyderabad
Sanga Reddy Branch, Sangareddy
Medak District Rep. by its Chief
Manager



Appellant/opposite partyno.1

A N D



1. B.Kishan Rao S/o Ganapathi Rao
Aged about 48 yrs, Advocate



2. B.KAvitha D/o B.Kishan Rao
Aged about 22 years, Student
Both R/o 4-9-113, Prashanth
Nagar, Sangareddy, Medak Dist

Respondents/complainants

3. M.N.R.Medical College & Hospital
Rep. by its Principal, Pasalwadi Village
Sangareddy, Medak Dist.



4. N.T.R.University of Health Sciences
Rep. by its Registrar, Vijayawada



5. Medical Council of India
New Delhi
(Respondents No.3 to 5 are not necessary
parties to the appeal)





Respondents/opposite parties No.2 to 4





Counsel for the Appellant: Sri K.Sridhar Rau

Counsel for the Respondent No.1 & 2 Sri R.Vinod Reddy
Counsel for the Respondents No.3 to 5



QUORUM: SRI SYED ABDULLAH, PRESIDING MEMBER
&

SRI R.LAKSHMINARSIMHA RAO, MEMBER





FRIDAY THE EIGTH DAY OF MAY

TWO THOUSAND NINE



Oral Order ( As per Sri R.Lakshminarsimha Rao, Member)
***





Being aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, Medak at Sangareddy in C.D.No.56 of 2005, the State Bank of Hyderabad which is the opposite party has preferred this appeal on the ground that the District Forum in spite of giving a finding that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the Bank, awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards expenses and Rs.2,000/- towards costs incurred by the first respondent.

The facts in brief leading to the filing of the complaint are that being attracted by the advertisement issued by the appellant offering to extend educational loan, the respondent no.1 approached the appellant bank with a request to provide educational loan for his daughter who had been pursuing MBBS second year and the appellant agreed to sanction an amount of Rs.4,80,000/- towards fee of 2nd, 3rd and 4th years of the respondent tno.2. On being requested by the appellant bank, the respondent no.1 submitted registered sale deed of his house which was referred to M/s Rao Associates, Hyderabad by the appellant to assess present market value of the house. As per the advice of the appellant bank respondentno.1 had obtained ‘no due certificate’ from different banks and legal opinion from panel advocate of the appellant bank, Sri Anantha Rao Kulkarni.

The appellant bank after verifying the documents filled up the loan application form and the respondents’ no.1 and 2 got affixed stamps on the agreement for term loan for education and submitted the same to the appellant on 7.7.2004. The appellant bank refused to provide educational loan to the respondent no.2 on the ground that the respondent no.3 is not a recognized institution. The respondent no.4 had recognized the respondent no.3 for admitting the students for medical and health courses. The respondent no.3 and 4 are proforma parties to the proceedings. Collateral security is not necessary to grant educational loan upto the amount of Rs.7 lakhs. The appellant insisted on submitting collateral security by the respondent no.1 with an intention to reject the application resulting the respondent no.1 borrowing money from private financiers on higher interest rate. Hence, an amount of Rs.5,700/- towards loss suffered and Rs.2 lakhs towards compensation for mental agony was sought against the appellant bank.

The respondents no.4 and 5 remained exparte.

The claim was resisted by the appellant bank. It was stated that the general notification to offer loan to eligible students issued by them is not a matter of right to an individual. The applicant must comply all the terms and conditions laid down by the appellant bank to sanction the loan. Granting of loan is a matter within the exclusive discretion of the appellant bank depending upon the merits of each case. The respondents’ no.1 and 2 are not consumers as no loan was sanctioned nor their application was rejected by the appellant bank. The respondent no.1 submitted incomplete information without filing required documents. The respondents no.1 and 2 have not signed the loan application forms. The appellant bank has not insisted on furnishing of security. The respondent no.1 has not furnished no due certificate from all local banks at Sangareddy. The appellant bank was given to understand that the recognition of the respondent no.3 was withdrawn by the authorities for the year 2003-04 during which period he approached the appellant bank for the purpose of sanction of the loan. The appellant bank had not obtained any title report and valuation report nor did it pay any remuneration to its panel advocate.

The respondent no.3 filed counter contending that medical council of India, New Delhi permitted them to fill up 100 seats inclusive of management quota for the academic year 2002-03. Accordingly, they had filled up 100 seats as per rules and regulations laid down by the respondent no.4. The respondent no.2 was given payment seat during the counseling held for the academic year 2002-03 and at the relevant time she was studying III year MBBS in the respondent no.3 institute.

The point for consideration is whether the District Forum was right in awarding expenses and costs to the respondents’ no.1 and 2?

The respondents’ no.1 and 2 had not preferred any appeal against the impugned order holding that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the appellant bank. Insofar as the said finding is concerned, it is deemed to have become final. The present appeal is preferred questioning the very propriety of the order awarding expenses and costs despite holding that there was no deficiency of service rendered by the appellant bank.

There is no dispute of the fact that the appellant bank had issued notification calling for offers from students for educational loan and that the respondents no.1 and 2 submitted documents which the appellant bank found incomplete and as such the loan was not sanctioned in favour of the respondent no.2 in view of their failure to satisfy the requirement of the terms and conditions laid down by the appellant bank. The District Forum held that there was no deficiency in service rendered by the appellant bank. The material part of the order reads as follows:

“In the present case the complainants have applied for loan and of course the same was not considered. It is the case of the opposite party no.1 that the complainants have taken away the loan application suo moto from the bank and that no loan was sanctioned. Hence under the circumstances there is no deficiency of service committed by the opposite party no.1. As granting of a loan is a matter with exclusive discretion of the bank depending upon the merits of each case and as the complainants have approached with the bank with incomplete information and not filed required documents the opposite party no.1 has not sanctioned loan. Thus under the circumstances it cannot be said that the complainants have suffered mental agony and not entitled for Rs.2 lakhs or any amount towards damages”.



Having found that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the appellant bank and the respondents no.1 and 2 had not suffered any mental tension, the District Forum proceeded to award Rs.5,000/- towards expenses incurred by the respondents no.1 and 2 for obtaining the documents and it also awarded Rs.2,000/- towards costs. The jurisdiction of the consumer forum is based on its finding whether the opposite party sold defective goods or rendered deficient service. When there is no deficiency in service as rendered by the opposite party there remains nothing making the respondents no.1 and 2 entitled to the costs incurred in collecting the documents for the purpose of obtaining loan from the appellant bank. There has been no concluded contract and the discretion of the appellant bank rules the roost insofar as sanctioning of the loan is concerned. Hence, having given a finding that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the appellant bank the District Forum cannot award any amount much less the amount stated to have been incurred by the respondent no.1 for collecting the documents for the purpose of obtaining loan from the appellant bank. Therefore the order under appeal is liable to be set aside.

In the result, the appeal is allowed setting aside the order of the District Forum Medak at Sangareddy passed in C.C. No.56 of 2006. Consequently the complaint is dismissed. In the circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to costs.





PRESIDING MEMBER



MEMBER

Dt.08.05.2009

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM: MEDAK AT SANGAREDDY

PRESENT: SRI P.V.SUBRAHMANYAM, B.A,B.L., PRESIDENT.
SMT U.SUNITA, M.A., LADY MEMBER.

Wednesday the 25 day of March, 2009

CC.NO.36/2008

Between:
Mohd. Abdul Majeed S/o Mohd. Ameenuddin,
Aged: 42 years, Occ: A.R. H.C. No. 27,
R/o H. No. 5-7-114, Maqdoom Nagar,
Sangareddy town, Medak Dist.
… complainant.
And
The Chief Manager, State Bank of Hyderabad,
Branch Sangareddy, District Medak.
… Opposite parties.


This case came up for final hearing before us on 23.03.2009 in the presence of Sri. Md.. Anwar Ali, Advocate for complainant and Sri. Joshi Narayana Rao, Advocate for opposite party, upon hearing the arguments of both sides, on perusing the record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this forum delivered the following.

O R D E R

( Per Sri. P.V. Subrahmanyam, President)

The complaint is filed Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to direct opposite party to pay Rs. 15,000/- to the complainant with interest at 18% p.a. from 17.08.2007 and to award compensation of Rs. 20,000/- and damages of Rs.20,000/-, as the complainant did not receive Rs.15,000/- from ATM even though Rs.15,000/- was debited from his savings bank account in connection with the said operation, due to technical defect.

-2-

The contents of complaint in brief are as follows:-

1). The complainant is working as A.R. Head Constable, Sangareddy. He has savings bank account in the bank of the opposite party and he avails ATM facility. On 17.08.2007 at 10:23 A.M. the complainant inserted his ATM card in the machine at the opposite party bank ATM center and operated the machine to withdraw Rs. 15,000/-, but he neither received the amount nor receipt . Immediately the complainant reported the matter to the opposite party stating that there was some technical problem in the ATM box. But no action was taken. Having waited for some time, the complainant got a legal notice issued on 19.11.2007. Opposite party sent a reply stating that there was no technical problem in the ATM box and that the complainant was successful in operating the ATM. In fact the complainant has not withdrawn the amount from the ATM and the reply is brought into existence for the purpose of this case. As responsible officer has not understood how the ATM box was not functioning ,it amounts to deficiency in service. Even though the complainant made representations and issued legal notice to the opposite party ,so far there is no response and the issue is not settled due to which the complainant faced lot of difficulties and mental agony. So the opposite party is liable to pay the lost amount of Rs.15,000/-, exemplary damages of Rs.20,000 and compensation of Rs.20,000/-. Hence the complaint.

2). Opposite party resisted the claim by filing its version to the following effect:
It is true that the complainant used the services of ATM of opposite party bank to withdraw RS.15,000/- on 17.08.2007 but deny that he approached the opposite party bank for withdrawal of the amount and further deny that after putting the ATM card the complainant neither received the amount nor receipt. They are false allegations and so denied. It is also denied that the complainant reported the matter to the opposite party that there was technical problem in the ATM box and the opposite party has not taken any action. They are all false and created story to file this complaint. A befitting reply was sent to the complainant’s legal notice. The transaction of the complainant on 17.08.2007 at 10.23 A.M. was successful, since there was no technical problem in the ATM box. The allegation of not withdrawing the amount is a false story setup up the complainant in order to extract further amount from the opposite party. The further allegations that responsible officer of opposite party bank has not understood that ATM box was not functioning and the complainant has not withdrawn the amount and therefore there was deficiency in service are all denied. It is denied that the complainant made several representations to the opposite party and that there was no response.

-3-

On receipt of notice from the complainant’s advocate, the bank officials have verified the transaction from their ATM switch center, Mumbai who informed that the transaction was recorded successfully and there was no technical problem, therefore not drawing the amount does not arise. Thus there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and hence the opposite party is not liable to pay the various amounts claimed by the complainant. The complaint may therefore be dismissed with exemplary costs.

3). Complainant’s chief affidavit is filed to prove the contents of the complaint. Like wise the chief affidavit of opposite party filed to prove the contents of the version filed on his behalf. Exs.A1 to A3 documents are marked on behalf of the complainant and Exs.B1 and B2 are marked on behalf of the opposite party. Written arguments of the complainant filed. Advocate for opposite party filed a memo to treat the version and counter affidavit of the opposite party as written arguments. Oral arguments of both sides heard. Perused the record.

4) The point for consideration is whether the complainant did not receive cash of Rs.15,000/- from ATM on 17.08.2007 and whether he is entitled to the various amounts claimed in the complaint?

Point:
5). The case of the complainant is that on 17.08.2007 at 10:23 A.M. he operated the ATM of the opposite party bank which is located at the bank itself, to receive Rs.15,000/- but cash did not come out from the ATM box and immediately he has reported the matter to the opposite party but there was no proper response and no action was taken. The opposite party admitted the transaction but denied that the complainant did not receive cash from the ATM and in fact the transaction was successful and the complainant has withdrawn cash of Rs.15,000/- in the transaction on 17.08.2007 at 10:23 A.M. In view of the rival contentions, let us now see the documents marked on either side.
6). Ex.A1 is office copy of legal notice issued by the complainant’s advocate to the opposite party through registered post and Ex.A2 is postal registration receipt. Ex. A3 is reply dt.26.11.2007 of the opposite party there to. Exs.B1and B2 are statements of complainant’s account maintained by the opposite

-4-

party bank showing the debit entry in the transaction in question with the help of ATM card and withdrawal of the amount of Rs. 15,000/- from savings account.

7). The transaction dt.17.08.2007 at 10:23 A.M. is not in dispute. The learned counsel for the complainant has stated at the time of arguments that the complainant along with another went to the ATM center and operated the machine but failed to get cash from the machine and immediately the complainant has reported the matter to the opposite party but they did not take action. When the opposite party denied the contentions of complainant and stated that the complainant has withdrawn the cash and the complainant did not make any report to the opposite party about the alleged technical defect in the ATM box, the complainant, in support of his contentions, should have filed evidence affidavit of the person who accompanied him, or at least should have produced any other convincing and acceptable evidence. But the only documentary evidence produced by the complainant is notice and reply only.

8). If really the complainant did not receive cash from ATM due to technical defect in the machine, the usual conduct of a person is to report the matter immediately to the branch in which the account is maintained. Even though the complainant stated that he has reported the matter, it is only a self serving version and not supported by even evidence affidavit of his associate. Very leisurely ie. more than two months after the transaction, Ex. A1 notice was sent on 19.11.2007 which cannot be said to be normal course of conduct of a person in the given situation. It is to be observed here that the complainant is not an illiterate. He is working as Head constable. His residence is at a walkable distance from the bank in which he has account. As already stated above the ATM center is at the bank itself. It is to be further noted that 17.08.2007 is Friday ie. working day of the bank and the time of operation of ATM was 10:23 A.M. ie. almost at the beginning of the working hours of the bank.

9). In the above stated circumstances the normal expected conduct of a person is to bring to the notice of the bank manager or to any of its responsible officers about not withdrawing amount from ATM. But the complainant failed to prove that he has followed any such procedure. From the circumstances the contention of the complainant that he has not received cash from ATM in the transaction on 17.08.2007 at 10:23 A.M. cannot be believed. He has failed to prove his contentions. It is therefore held that the complainant is not entitled to

-5-

any amounts claimed in the complainant. The point is answered against the complainant.
10). In the result the complaint is dismissed. No costs.

C.C.No.91/08
Between:-
Karra Nagamalleshwar Rao, S/o.K.S.T.Sai,
Age:55 years, Occ: Medical Practitioner,
R/o.11-125, Behind Govt.Hospital,
Mancherial. …Complainant.

//AND//

State Bank of Hyderabad,
SBI Branch, Mancherial,
Rep.by its Br.Manager. …Opp.Party.


Counsel for Complainant : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Vairagare.


Counsel for Opposite Party : Mr.Bipin Kumar Patel.

QUORUM:-

SRI.P.THIRUPATHI REDDY, M.A., L.L.B. : PRESIDENT.

SRI.G.SRINIVAS, B.COM., L.L.B. : MEMBER.

TUESDAY THE 28th DAY OF APRIL 2009.

-:ORDER:-

Order Pronounced by Member:-

This complaint is filed under section 12 of C.P. Act 1986.
The brief facts of complaint are as follows:

1. The complainant purchased the Maruthi Zen – DIA/C Car on 30.01.2002 from Varun Motors Hyderabad and said vehicle was financed by State Bank of Hyderabad Br:Mancherial and subsequently on establishment of S.B.H., S.I.B., Branch at Mancherial the above said Car loan account was transferred to the said branch. The car was purchased it was insured directly by the State Bank of Hyderabad, Br:Mancherial with United India Insurance Company Ltd., Br:Mancherial. Subsequently when the insurance renewal date was due the complaint to be on safer cards has insured his vehicle with the National Insurance Company Limited Adilabad branch and informed the same to the Opp.Party. But without taking the said fact in to account, the Opp.Party officials has mechanically renewed the insurance of complainant’s car directly by adding the insurance renewal premium amount his loan account through United India Insurance Company Limited, Br:Mancherial. The said fact was not even informed to this complainant by the Opp.Party. The complainant has neither received the policy from the United India Insurance Company Limited Br:Mancheiral nor the receipt of premium paid. The Opp.Party being the financier of Car of this complainant is under an obligation to inform about the charging of Insurance premium amount and its addition to the loan account. But they did not do so. The complainant has informed the Opp.Party well in advance with regard to renewal of his car’s Insurance through National Insurance Company Ltd. But inspite of that, the Opp.Party has caused loss to him by renewing again his car Insurance thrice with the United India Insurance Company Limited. The total loss caused to this complainant by doing double insurance is approximately Rs.25,000/-. The Opp.Party has renewed the Insurance without this complainant consent and added premium amount to his loan account on 30.01.2002, 17.01.2002, and 07.01.2004. It came to the complainants knowledge only on closing the loan account and till then the Opp.Party have not even informed the same to the complainant. The complainant has paid entire amount as per ledger of loan account as informed by Opp.Party presuming that it is the loan amount only. But the Opp.Party has suppressed the real fact and collected the Insurance premium amounts thrice by adding it to the loan amount fraudulently and caused pain, mental agony and heavy loss. As such the complainant was constrained to knock the doors of the Banking Ombudsmen A.P.Hyderabad vide his complainant dt:22.05.2006.
Hence the complainant prayed this forum may kindly be pleased to allow the complaint and direct the Opp.Party to pay the premium amount paid thrice amounts to Rs.25,000/- with interest at the rate of 24% p.a. from the date of it’s addition to loan account till realization and further award the damages of Rs.75,000/- in favour of me payable by the Opp.Party, in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.

2. The Opp.Party contested the petition and filed counter. The contents of counter is as follows:
On the availment of loan by the bank as per the guidelines of Reserve Bank of India, the vehicle has to be insured by the bank, till the loan amount is cleared. That the Opp.Party used to regularly renew the policy of the car with the United India Insurance Co. till the loan is cleared. That, this Opp.Party has no knowledge or intimation about the complainant has also insurance the car with National Insurance Co. and two insurance policy were been covered for one vehicle. The complainant very well knowing that the Opp.Party bank is renewing the policy regularly from the date of loan i.e., 30.01.2002-2003, 2003-2004 and 2004-2005 with United India Insurance Co.Ltd., Mancherial Branch. The complainant barred by limitation and there was no cause of action to file the complaint, hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed against the Opp.Party.
3. Both parties filed Proof Affidavits.
4. On behalf of complainant Ex.A1 to A7 are marked. No documents are filed on behalf of Opp.Party.
5. Now the point for consideration is whether there are grounds to allow the petition?
6. Heard both sides. As seen from records the complainant agitated his relief and remedies before Banking Ombudsmen on 22.05.2006. The complainant did not succeeded in the process. So again he carried same litigation to this Forum. Admittedly there is no bar for insuring the vehicle in two different Insurance Companies. If anything happens the policyholder can claim benefits from both companies. In this case also the complainant enjoyed the risk benefits till the expiry of the coverage period in those policies. It is not the case of anybody that both Opp.Party and complainant paid separate premiums on the same policy of United India Insurance Company (Bank Policy). We see no merits in the claim of the petitioner.

7. The Ld. Advocate for the Opp.Party mainly contested this case on point of limitation. As seen from the contents of complaint the Opp.Party, it is stated in para 4 of the complaint “The Opp.Party has renewed the Insurance without this complainant consent and added premium amount to his loan account on 30.01.2002, 17.01.2003 and 07.01.2004. It came to the complainants knowledge only on closing the loan amount”. As such the complainant was constrained to knock the doors of the Banking Ombudsman A.P. Hyderabad vide his complainant dt:22.05.2006”. According to settled case of complainant, he initiated legal action for claiming back premium amount paid on behalf of him by the Opp.Party on 22.05.2006. The District Consumer Forum is another statutory body for claiming the similar relief claimed by him in the complaint. Thus the limitation starts from 22.05.2006. In this case, complaint, was filed on 11.09.2008 i.e., with a delay of 109 days. Complainant filed this case without filing petition for condone delay in this case.

8. The Ld. Advocate for Opp.Party submitted that the complaint petition is barred by limitations U/S. 24A of C.P.Act. Sec.24 A mandates that the “District Consumer Forum shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within 2 years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen”. Thus as seen from the material on record, limitation in this case starts on 22.05.2006 only. Thus we feel the case is barred by limitation.

O R D E R

(Per Sri. P.V. Subrahmanyam, President)

This complaint is filed Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to direct the opposite party No.1 to pay sanctioned loan amount of Rs.1,00,000/-,

-2-
compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-, expenses for collecting documents Rs.5,000/- and towards costs Rs.5,000/-.
The averments in the complaint in brief are as follows:

1). The complainant was a cable operator in Narayankhed Mandal and is a permanent resident of Narayankhed town, Medak district. Government of Andhra Pradesh lunched a scheme to provide employment to unemployed youth, called RAJIV YUVA SHAKTHI SCHEME, in the year, 2007. The complainant applied through MPDO at Narayankhed for sanction of Milk Business by selecting him in the said scheme. The committee members of the scheme selected the complainant and forwarded to opposite party No. 2 for approval of the selection on 12.11.2007 and gave a direction to opposite party No. 1 to grant loan of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant and also intimated to opposite party No.3 on 02.02.2008 under the scheme. The opposite party demanded the complainant to complete the formalities including production of no dues certificate from SBH, DCC Bank, Grameena Vikas Bank. By completing all the formalities, the same was given to the opposite party No.1 on 07.12.2007. Opposite party No. 1 refused to give loan stating that the complainant does not hold agricultural land and patta pass book and title deed which were shown to opposite party No. 1 stand in the name of his father. Opposite party No. 1 suggested the complainant to apply for loan in cream separator and milk checking machine under the above said scheme. Accordingly the complainant applied and the same was forwarded to opposite party No. 2. The committee members of the scheme forwarded it to opposite party No. 1 for loan but opposite party No. 1 refused, stating that the scheme period was closed. The act of opposite party No. 1 is negligent, due to which the complainant lost his earlier job of cable operator and spent more than Rs.5,000/- for collecting all documents as demanded by opposite party Nos. 2 and 3, as such the complainant claims Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation, Rs.1,00,000/- the loan amount and Rs.5,000/- for costs of the complainant against opposite party No. 1 only. Opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 are made as formal parties. Hence the complaint to direct opposite party No. 1 to pay to the complainant Rs.4,10,000/-.

2). The compliant is resisted by opposite party No. 1 by filing a counter to the following effect:
It is true that Government of Andhra Pradesh launched a scheme called RAJIV YUVA SHAKTHI in the year, 2007 to provide employment to unemployed youth and the complainant applied for sanction of milch animal (Dairy farm) but not milk business. The bank has received proceedings No. 26/02 METEOR/RYS/2007,dt 12.11.2007 from District Collector & Chairman, METEOR , Sangareddy regarding consent to the applicant under the said programme subject to fulfillment of bank terms and conditions. Accordingly opposite party No.1 has examined the documents as per

-3-

guidelines of the NABARD. As per that, the applicant was not holding agricultural land in his name for fodder and grass to feed the animals as such opposite party No. 1 has returned the application to concerned office on 19.12.2007. The applicant filed a title deed No. Y465657 belonging to his father, namely Narayan S/o Permaiah agricultural land Sy.No. 77/5 extent Ac 1-00 gts situated at Goudaugam Manoor Mandal, Medak District. As the father is not applicant under this scheme, the same is not considered. Opposite party No. 1 is in no way concerned about selecting the name of the complainant by the members of the scheme and opposite party No. 2 approving the same etc. After verification of the documents submitted by the complainant, concerned office was informed that the applicant was not holding agricultural land in his name. Opposite party No. 1 does not admit that it has suggested the complainant to apply loan for cream separator and milk checking machine under the above scheme and that he applied but opposite party No. 1 refused to sanction loan when it was forwarded to it. No such suggestion was given and it is a concocted story. There is no negligence of opposite party No. 1. Opposite party No. 1 does not admit that the complainant is entitled to Rs.4,10,000/- under various heads as contended in the complaint.
The aim and object of the scheme is to provide assistance to unemployed youth, where as the complainant herein is already employed as cable operator in Narayankhed and earning good income from the said business. The said fact was not revealed by him before the interview board as well as bankers. On this count also the complainant is not eligible for the loan. He has mislead the bank by suppressing facts. The complainant and his father misbehaved with the manager and field officer of opposite party No. 1 bank and used filthy language in the bank premises. The applicant’s father threatened the manager and the field officer in the bank if loan is not sanctioned to the complainant, which was reported by the manager to Narayankhed police. The complainant is not a consumer. There is no relationship for him with opposite party No. 1. Sanction letter was never given by opposite party No.1 to the complainant. The complainant has made a false claim to enrich himself at the cost of nationalized bank. There is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No. 1. The complaint may therefore be dismissed with costs.

Opposite party No. 3 has filed a counter which is adopted by opposite party No. 2 under a memo. The counter is to the following effect:

3). RYS programme is being implemented with effect from the year, 2004-05 as per Government instruction to provide self employment to the unemployed youth. The eligibility criteria of the RYS programme is as follows:
a. The Candidate must be a Resident of Medak District.
b. Age group : between 18-35 years.
c.Educational Qualification: SSC pass/fail
d.Annual Income of the family: below Rs.50,000/-
e.Community : Open to all Categories.

-4-

4). The complainant applied for loan under RYS programme for the year, 2007-08 at Narayankhed Mandal (MPDO). He was selected for establishment of dairy unit with the project cost of Rs.1,00,000/- along with the bank manager consent letter for financing to the unit (the banker is one of the mandal level committee members for selection of beneficiary). After receiving the mandal level selection committee proposal, it was approved by district level sanction committee for the year, 2007-08. After approval of the committee the required documentation have been completed by the beneficiary and eligible 20% subsidy i.e. an amount of Rs.20,000/- was released for office of opposite party No. 3 in favour of the beneficiary vide Proc. No. 22/02/RYS/2007,dt 12.11.2007 of District Collector / Chairman. The details of the cost of unit is as follows:
1.Name of the Unit : Dairy
2. Unit Cost : Rs. 1.00 lakh
3. Eligible Subsidy : 20% on unit cost.
4. Beneficiary contribution : 10% on unit cost.
5. Bank loan : 70% on unit cost
Total unit cost : Rs. 1.00 Lakh.
5). After receiving the subsidy amount, the banker returned the subsidy amount to office of opposite party No. 3 on 19.12.2007 through letter No. F/Adv/RYS/113 stating the beneficiary does not have any agricultural land for the fodder and grass to feed the milch animals. There after the candidate requested opposite party No. 3 on 05.01.2008 to change the unit from dairy to purchase cream separator machine and milk business and accordingly proposal was sent to the bank manager SBH, Narayankhed to give consent as requested by the candidate, but no such consent has been received from the banker. The complainant himself stated in the complaint that opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 are formal parties and no relief is claimed against them. The complaint may therefore be dismissed against opposite party Nos. 2 and 3.

6). Evidence affidavit of complainant and opposite party No. 1 filed. Exs. A1 to A6 are marked on behalf of the complainant. Exs. B1 and B2 are marked on behalf of the opposite party No. 1. Arguments of both sides heard.

7). The point for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled to loan amount of Rs.1,00,000/-, compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- etc., against the opposite party No. 1 as claimed in the complaint?

-5-

Point:
8). The case of the complainant is that he has been working as cable operator in Narayankhed Mandal, Medak District and after the Andhra Pradesh Government lunched RAJIV YUVA SHAKTHI SCHEME in the year, 2007 he applied loan for milk business under the scheme and he was interviewed by the selection committee along with others and selected him and some others and sent the selected list to opposite party No. 2 for approval and directed opposite party No. 1 to grant loan of Rs.1,00,000/- . It is his further case that as demanded by opposite party No. 1 he has completed the formalities including production of no dues certificate from the other banks in Narayankhed town, in spite of it opposite party refused to grant loan on the ground that the complainant does not possess agricultural land and the pass book and title deed book which are shown to the bank are in the name of his father and suggested the complainant to apply for loan in cream separator and milk checking machine under the RAJIV YUVA SHAKTHI SCHEME and accordingly when the complainant applied for loan under the above scheme for the above said purpose, again opposite party No. 1 refused to grant loan on the ground that the scheme period was over. According to the complainant the Act of opposite party No. 1 is negligent due to which the complainant lost his earlier job of cable operator and spent more than Rs.5,000/- for collecting all documents and therefore claims a compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- in addition to loan amount of Rs.1,00,000/-, expenses of Rs.5,000/- and costs of Rs.5,000/- in connection with this litigation. But according to opposite party No. 1 the complainant applied for sanction of loan for miltch animal (Dairy form) but not milk business and as per the terms and conditions of the bank, for grant of loan applied for by the complainant he must hold agricultural land. But the complainant has not produced any proof to show that he holds agricultural land and the pattadar pass book and titled deed book which are shown by him to the bank stand in the name of his father, therefore the complainant is not entitled for the loan applied for. It is the further case of opposite party No. 1 that it has never suggested the complainant to apply for loan for cream separator and milk checking machine under the scheme. According to opposite party No. 1 bank, when it has informed the complainant that loan cannot be granted under the scheme for dairy form, the complainant himself applied for loan for cream separator and milk checking machine but by the time he applied for it, the scheme period was closed therefore opposite party No. 1 could not consider his application as such there is no negligence at all on the part of opposite party No. 1.

9). The defense taken by the Opposite party No. 3 which is adopted by opposite party No. 2 is almost similar.

10). To prove the case the documents marked by both the parties are:

-6-

Ex.A1 : Letter of opposite party No. 3 to opposite party No. 1 forwarding the loan application of the complainant for its consent under the RAJIV YUVA SHAKTHI PROGRAMME 2007-08 subject to fulfillment of bank terms and conditions.
Ex.A2 : Proceedings of opposite party No. 2 in his capacity as chairman METEOR approving the list of persons selected by the committee under the scheme for sanction of loan.
Ex.A3: Residential certificate of complainant issued by Thalsildar, Narayankhed Mandal.
Ex.A4 : Letter of opposite party No. 1 to the other banks in Narayankhed town for issue of no dues / no objection certificate.
Ex.A5: Xerox copy of list of persons selected by the committee members for loan under the scheme.
Ex.A6 : Xerox copies of titled deed book and pattadar pass book of Narayana (Father of the complainant).
Ex.B1: Xerox copy of literature about NABARD.
Ex. B2 : Complaint copy sent by opposite party No. 1 to the Sub-Inspector of Police, Narayankhed police station against the father of the complainant.
11). At the out set it is to be seen that the persons entitled to apply under the scheme are those who are unemployed youth. But the complainant herein says that he has been working as cable operator and earning and now he lost his earnings in that job as opposite party No.1 refused to sanction loan under the scheme. When he was earning as cable operator, he was not unemployed youth to reap the benefits under the scheme. Therefore on this ground the complainant cannot maintain this complaint.
12). Ex. A1 clearly shows that opposite party No. 3 has stated therein that the forwarding of loan application of the complainant was for consent of opposite party No. 1 under the scheme subject to fulfillment of bank terms and conditions. According to opposite party No. 1, to consider the application of a person for grant of loan for dairy farm , holding agricultural land by such person is mandatory and as the complainant has not produced any proof that he was holding agricultural land, he is not entitled for loan under the scheme. It is not the case of the complainant that he holds agricultural land. Therefore the refusal of opposite party No. 1 to grant loan to the complainant for dairy farm cannot be said to be any negligent act. The allegation of the complainant that opposite party No. 1 suggested him to apply for loan under the scheme for cream separator and milk checking machine is not proved, inspite of denial of the said allegation by opposite party No. 1. It is not the case of the complainant that the contention of opposite party No. 1 that by the time he applied for loan for cream separator and milk checking machine the scheme period was not closed as stated by opposite party No.1.As the complainant is not an unemployed youth he is

-7-

not at all entitled to apply for any kind of loan under the scheme. He is not a consumer as defined in the Consumer Protection Act nor there is any deficiency in service on the part of any of the opposite parties.
13). Therefore in view of the discussion supra it is held that the complainant has failed to prove any negligence on the part of opposite party No. 1 as alleged by him. Unjustly he wanted to derive benefit under the scheme, though to his knowledge he is not entitled, as such latches are on his part. In the circumstances it is held that he is not entitled for any compensation or loan amount or expenses etc. Point is answered against the complainant.
14). In the result the complaint is dismissed. No costs.

Babburi Venkateswarlu, S/o.Bhadraiah, age: 45 years, occu: Government Teacher,

(School assistant) Z.P.H.S.School, Jalagam Nagar, R/o.Mamillagudem Street,

Khammam District.
…Complainant

State Bank of Hyderabad, Zilla Parishad Branch, Khammam town and District,

rep. by its Branch Manager.

…Opposite party.


O R D E R

1. This complaint is filed u/s.12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The averments made in the complaint are that the complainant is working as Government Teacher, that on 7-5-2009 the complainant opened a savings Bank Account bearing A/c.No.62096853456 with the opposite party bank and in turn the opposite party handed over the pass book showing the account in favour of the complainant.

That on 7-5-2009 the Salary Disbursing Officer of Z.P.S.School, Jalagam Nagar, Khammam rural mandal, Khammam District deposited a cheque bearing No.771461, dt.7-5-2009 for an amount of Rs.50,916/- in the S.B.H., Try Branch, Khammam-950 for the credit of the complainant towards salary for three months and the same was credited in the account of the complainant as balance available. The complainant wanted to incur the said amount for the treatment of his father, who was ailing with heart disease and presented the withdrawal slip, but the opposite party bank returned the with drawl slip, on the ground that they withheld the account as per the instructions of higher authorities and unless the higher authorities issue further orders with regard to withdrawal, they will not give a single pie to the complainant. The authorities of Gandhi Chowk Branch ordered to seize the account, to realize the personal loan amount obtained by the complainant in the year, 2005, the bank has provided the loan to the complainant after executing one employee’s surety, who got own house and obtained signatures on blank promissory notes, blank cheques and more than 20 to 40 papers and therefore withholding the account is unauthorized and illegal. This act on the part of opposite party amounts to deficiency in service. Hence, the complaint.

2. On receipt of the notice, the opposite party appeared and filed counter and admitted that the complainant has presented a cheque for an amount of Rs.50,916/- and also admitted that the opposite party withheld the account of complainant as per the advice of higher authorities. In fact the complainant had availed personal loan from State Bank of Hyderabad, Gandhi Chowk Branch, Khammam vide it’s A/c.No.52114413470 for an amount of Rs.50,000/- and also availed personal loan from S.B.H., Yellandu Branch, Khammam District vide it’s A/c.No.62089912912 for an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- on 22-1-2009. The complainant did not pay the installments and his loan accounts went to NPA and he is due an amount of Rs.45,273.16 Ps. without interest from 1-3-2006 onwards at S.B.H. Gandhi Chowk Branch, Khammam and also due an amount of Rs,2,03,328/- as on 30-4-2009 at S.B.H., Yellandu Branch. As such the amount will not be realized unless and until the outstanding amounts are cleared of and prayed to dismiss the complaint.

3. On behalf of the complainant, he filed Xerox copy of the pass book issued by the opposite party, which is marked as Ex.A.1 and Xerox copy of cheque bearing No.771461 dt.7-5-2009 for Rs.50,916/- marked as Ex.A.2.

4. On behalf of the opposite party, Xerox copy of personal loan agreement executed by complainant for an amount of Rs.50,000/-, which is marked as Ex.B.1, statement of Account of Yellandu Branch, showing due for Rs.2,03,328/-, which is marked as Ex.B.2 and Xerox copy of statement of Account of Gandhi chowk Branch, showing due for Rs.45,273.16Ps, which is marked as Ex.B.3 filed.

5. Heard oral arguments from both sides. The counsel for opposite party filed written arguments. Perused the oral and documentary evidence, upon which the point that arose for consideration is,

1. Whether the opposite party is empowered to withhold the balance

amount of the complainant?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to compensation?

3. To what relief?

Points No.1 to 3:

6. It is not in dispute that the complainant had opened the S.B.Account with opposite party and an amount of Rs.50,913/- is shown as balance in his credit. It is also not in dispute that the opposite party has seized the said balance amount of complainant and refused to honour the withdrawal slip on the ground that the complainant is due to the opposite party bank as in Exs.B.2 to B.3.

7. Now the question arose for consideration is, whether the opposite party can seize the amount of complainant in realization of due amount without availing the legal remedies. On this aspect of the case, the learned counsel for the opposite party placed reliance to a decision reported in AIR 1992 Supreme Court 1066. In the above citation, their lordships have expressed their opinion under order 21 rule 46(a) of CPC. It is the case of attachment on deposit amount, when an attachment notice is served, J.D.R. has to appear before the court and obtain suitable direction, for safeguarding its interest. This became clear from the perusal of Order 21 Rule 46(a), the court in such a situation has to take into account the bankers lien over the securities of deposities.

8. But here in the instant case, no such decree is obtained by opposite party for realization of the amount of complainant unless there is a direction by a Civil Court for seizing of amount or attachment of amount, the bank can not interfere suo-moto by withholding the amount. In the case on hand, the opposite party has seized the balance amount of complainant sue-moto without availing the legal remedies. It is not known what is the amount due by the complainant. Let the civil court pass a decree then the opposite party is empowered to attach the balance amount of complainant in realization of due amount. Such power of seizure is not sue-moto vested with the opposite party bank. What is attached is the money in the deposit account.

The opposite party has to appear before the court and obtain a suitable direction for safeguarding its interest. In the instant case, the complainant has already executed the surety and also an agreement in favour of opposite party Bank as in Ex.A.1 and A.2. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the action of opposite party in withholding amount of complainant is not justified. Hence, the complaint is allowed. We direct the opposite party to pay the balance amount of Rs.50,913/- to the complainant together with interest at the rate of 9% P.A. from the date of deposit, till the date of payment within a period of one month from the date of this order and further directed to pay the amount of Rs.5,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony suffered by the complainant and to pay Rs.1,000/- towards costs of the litigation. The opposite party is advised to take legal steps for realization of the due amount.

G.Gopal Reddy, s/o.Ranga Reddy, age: 59 years, occu:

Employee, Suryapeta, Nalgonda District.



…Complainant

and



The Branch Manager, State Bank of Hyderabad, Suryapeta

Main Branch, Nalgonda District.

…Opposite party.



This C.C. came before us for final hearing on 16-9-2009 in the presence of Sri.M.Niranjan Reddy, Advocate for complainant; opposite party appeared in person; upon hearing the arguments and upon perusing the material papers on record, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Forum passed the following order:



O R D E R



1. This complaint is filed u/s.12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The brief facts of the averments made in the complaint are that, the complainant is having account bearing No.52123911474 with the opposite party bank. On account of the injuries sustained by him in a motor accident, he filed O.P. No.870/1998 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (District Judge), Khammam, the same was allowed and awarded an amount of Rs.34,000/- together with interest and costs by the Hon’ble District Judge, Khammam. Along with interest and costs, an amount of Rs.59,861/- was deposited by the Insurance company.


The complainant filed an I.A.427/2008, dt.15-2-2008, in the above said O.P., the said petition was allowed and issued a cheque bearing No.634293, for Rs.59,861/- payable by opposite party, directed them to credit the said cheque amount in the account of the complainant through a registered letter bearing No.1737, dt.15-3-2008. Inspite of repeated requests, the opposite party failed to credit the amount and gave evasive reply. Hence, this complaint to direct the opposite party to pay the cheque amount of Rs.59,861/- with interest at 18% P.A. from 15-3-2008 till the date of realization; to further direct the opposite party to pay a amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards damages to him and to award costs.

2. On receipt of notice, the opposite parties appeared in person and filed a memo stating that they credited the amount of Rs.59,711/- on 15-6-2009 in account No.52123911474 of the complainant by obtaining a duplicate cheque from the Hon’ble District Judge, Khammam.

3. On behalf of complainant, the following documents have been filed and marked as Exhibits.

Ex.A.1 - Statement of Account

Ex.A.2 - Letter of the complainant, dt.1-8-2008

Ex.A.3 - letter, dt,15-9-2008

Ex.A.4 - Delivery slip of postal department, dt.15-3-2008

Ex.A.5 - Letter, dt.30-10-2008

Ex.A.6 - Letter, dt.24-12-2008 addressed by the Manager, State

Bank of Hyderabad, Main branch, Suryapet.



4. Heard both sides. Upon perusing the material papers on record and upon hearing the arguments, now the point for consideration is, whether the complainant is entitled to claim as prayed for?

P O I N T

5. It is an admitted fact that the complainant is having account at opposite party bank, account bearing No.52123911474. It is also admitted fact that the Hon’ble District Judge was pleased to issue cheque bearing No.634293 for Rs.59,861/- payable at opposite party bank and the same may be credited to the account of the complainant which was also acknowledged by the opposite party through registered letter bearing No.1737, dt.15-3-2008. It is also admitted fact that they failed to credit the amount in the account of the complainant. Hence, the complainant filed this complaint to credit an amount of Rs.59,861/- with 18% P.A. from 15-3-2008 till the date of realization and also to award an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards damages.

6. As per Ex.A.6, Letter, dt.24-12-2008 addressed by the Manager, State Bank of Hyderabad, Main branch, Suryapet to the Hon’ble District Judge, Khammam, it was stated that the above cheque was misplaced, after due search they could not trace out. Hence, he requested the Hon’ble District Judge, to issue duplicate cheque. However, the opposite party did not file any counter, but appeared in person and filed a memo dt. 23-6-2009, by stating that they have credited the amount of Rs.59,711/- on 15-6-2009 to the account bearing No. 52123911474 of the complainant by obtaining a duplicate cheque from the Hon’ble District Judge. On 16-9-2009 the complainant appeared in person and submitted his oral arguments and he stated that the oppsotie partycaused so much mental agony and inconvenience to him.

7. After careful perusal the entire record, it is clear case that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Hence, we feel that this case is fit to be allowed.

8. In the result, the complaint is allowed in part, directing the opposite party to pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- towards damages. There is no order as to the costs.

G.Gopal Reddy, s/o.Ranga Reddy, age: 59 years, occu:

Employee, Suryapeta, Nalgonda District.



…Complainant

and



The Branch Manager, State Bank of Hyderabad, Suryapeta

Main Branch, Nalgonda District.

…Opposite party.



This C.C. came before us for final hearing on 16-9-2009 in the presence of Sri.M.Niranjan Reddy, Advocate for complainant; opposite party appeared in person; upon hearing the arguments and upon perusing the material papers on record, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Forum passed the following order:



O R D E R



1. This complaint is filed u/s.12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The brief facts of the averments made in the complaint are that, the complainant is having account bearing No.52123911474 with the opposite party bank. On account of the injuries sustained by him in a motor accident, he filed O.P. No.870/1998 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (District Judge), Khammam, the same was allowed and awarded an amount of Rs.34,000/- together with interest and costs by the Hon’ble District Judge, Khammam. Along with interest and costs, an amount of Rs.59,861/- was deposited by the Insurance company.


The complainant filed an I.A.427/2008, dt.15-2-2008, in the above said O.P., the said petition was allowed and issued a cheque bearing No.634293, for Rs.59,861/- payable by opposite party, directed them to credit the said cheque amount in the account of the complainant through a registered letter bearing No.1737, dt.15-3-2008. Inspite of repeated requests, the opposite party failed to credit the amount and gave evasive reply. Hence, this complaint to direct the opposite party to pay the cheque amount of Rs.59,861/- with interest at 18% P.A. from 15-3-2008 till the date of realization; to further direct the opposite party to pay a amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards damages to him and to award costs.

2. On receipt of notice, the opposite parties appeared in person and filed a memo stating that they credited the amount of Rs.59,711/- on 15-6-2009 in account No.52123911474 of the complainant by obtaining a duplicate cheque from the Hon’ble District Judge, Khammam.

3. On behalf of complainant, the following documents have been filed and marked as Exhibits.

Ex.A.1 - Statement of Account

Ex.A.2 - Letter of the complainant, dt.1-8-2008

Ex.A.3 - letter, dt,15-9-2008

Ex.A.4 - Delivery slip of postal department, dt.15-3-2008

Ex.A.5 - Letter, dt.30-10-2008

Ex.A.6 - Letter, dt.24-12-2008 addressed by the Manager, State

Bank of Hyderabad, Main branch, Suryapet.



4. Heard both sides. Upon perusing the material papers on record and upon hearing the arguments, now the point for consideration is, whether the complainant is entitled to claim as prayed for?

P O I N T

5. It is an admitted fact that the complainant is having account at opposite party bank, account bearing No.52123911474. It is also admitted fact that the Hon’ble District Judge was pleased to issue cheque bearing No.634293 for Rs.59,861/- payable at opposite party bank and the same may be credited to the account of the complainant which was also acknowledged by the opposite party through registered letter bearing No.1737, dt.15-3-2008. It is also admitted fact that they failed to credit the amount in the account of the complainant. Hence, the complainant filed this complaint to credit an amount of Rs.59,861/- with 18% P.A. from 15-3-2008 till the date of realization and also to award an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards damages.

6. As per Ex.A.6, Letter, dt.24-12-2008 addressed by the Manager, State Bank of Hyderabad, Main branch, Suryapet to the Hon’ble District Judge, Khammam, it was stated that the above cheque was misplaced, after due search they could not trace out. Hence, he requested the Hon’ble District Judge, to issue duplicate cheque. However, the opposite party did not file any counter, but appeared in person and filed a memo dt. 23-6-2009, by stating that they have credited the amount of Rs.59,711/- on 15-6-2009 to the account bearing No. 52123911474 of the complainant by obtaining a duplicate cheque from the Hon’ble District Judge. On 16-9-2009 the complainant appeared in person and submitted his oral arguments and he stated that the oppsotie partycaused so much mental agony and inconvenience to him.

7. After careful perusal the entire record, it is clear case that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Hence, we feel that this case is fit to be allowed.

8. In the result, the complaint is allowed in part, directing the opposite party to pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- towards damages. There is no order as to the costs.

G.Gopal Reddy, s/o.Ranga Reddy, age: 59 years, occu:

Employee, Suryapeta, Nalgonda District.



…Complainant

and



The Branch Manager, State Bank of Hyderabad, Suryapeta

Main Branch, Nalgonda District.

…Opposite party.








O R D E R




1. This complaint is filed u/s.12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The brief facts of the averments made in the complaint are that, the complainant is having account bearing No.52123911474 with the opposite party bank. On account of the injuries sustained by him in a motor accident, he filed O.P. No.870/1998 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (District Judge), Khammam, the same was allowed and awarded an amount of Rs.34,000/- together with interest and costs by the Hon’ble District Judge, Khammam. Along with interest and costs, an amount of Rs.59,861/- was deposited by the Insurance company.


The complainant filed an I.A.427/2008, dt.15-2-2008, in the above said O.P., the said petition was allowed and issued a cheque bearing No.634293, for Rs.59,861/- payable by opposite party, directed them to credit the said cheque amount in the account of the complainant through a registered letter bearing No.1737, dt.15-3-2008. Inspite of repeated requests, the opposite party failed to credit the amount and gave evasive reply. Hence, this complaint to direct the opposite party to pay the cheque amount of Rs.59,861/- with interest at 18% P.A. from 15-3-2008 till the date of realization; to further direct the opposite party to pay a amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards damages to him and to award costs.

2. On receipt of notice, the opposite parties appeared in person and filed a memo stating that they credited the amount of Rs.59,711/- on 15-6-2009 in account No.52123911474 of the complainant by obtaining a duplicate cheque from the Hon’ble District Judge, Khammam.

3. On behalf of complainant, the following documents have been filed and marked as Exhibits.

Ex.A.1 - Statement of Account

Ex.A.2 - Letter of the complainant, dt.1-8-2008

Ex.A.3 - letter, dt,15-9-2008

Ex.A.4 - Delivery slip of postal department, dt.15-3-2008

Ex.A.5 - Letter, dt.30-10-2008

Ex.A.6 - Letter, dt.24-12-2008 addressed by the Manager, State

Bank of Hyderabad, Main branch, Suryapet.



4. Heard both sides. Upon perusing the material papers on record and upon hearing the arguments, now the point for consideration is, whether the complainant is entitled to claim as prayed for?

P O I N T

5. It is an admitted fact that the complainant is having account at opposite party bank, account bearing No.52123911474. It is also admitted fact that the Hon’ble District Judge was pleased to issue cheque bearing No.634293 for Rs.59,861/- payable at opposite party bank and the same may be credited to the account of the complainant which was also acknowledged by the opposite party through registered letter bearing No.1737, dt.15-3-2008. It is also admitted fact that they failed to credit the amount in the account of the complainant. Hence, the complainant filed this complaint to credit an amount of Rs.59,861/- with 18% P.A. from 15-3-2008 till the date of realization and also to award an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards damages.

6. As per Ex.A.6, Letter, dt.24-12-2008 addressed by the Manager, State Bank of Hyderabad, Main branch, Suryapet to the Hon’ble District Judge, Khammam, it was stated that the above cheque was misplaced, after due search they could not trace out. Hence, he requested the Hon’ble District Judge, to issue duplicate cheque. However, the opposite party did not file any counter, but appeared in person and filed a memo dt. 23-6-2009, by stating that they have credited the amount of Rs.59,711/- on 15-6-2009 to the account bearing No. 52123911474 of the complainant by obtaining a duplicate cheque from the Hon’ble District Judge. On 16-9-2009 the complainant appeared in person and submitted his oral arguments and he stated that the oppsotie partycaused so much mental agony and inconvenience to him.

7. After careful perusal the entire record, it is clear case that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Hence, we feel that this case is fit to be allowed.

FA.No.714/2009 AGAINST C.C.No.43/2009 DISTRICT FORUM, KHAMMAM.
Between:
State Bank of Hyderabad

Z.B.Branch, Khammam,

Rep. by its Branch Manager. Appellant/

Opp.party



A N D



Sri Babburi Venkateswarlu

S/o.Bhadraiah, aged about 45 years,

Occ:Govt. Teacher (School Asst.)

ZPHS school, Jalagam nagar,

R/o.Mamilla Gudem Street,

Khammam. Respondent/

Complainant

Counsel for the Appellant: Mr.Ch.Siva Reddy
Counsel for the Respondent:-Respondent appeared in person.
QUORUM: SMT.M.SHREESHA, MEMBER

&

SRI K.SATYANAND, MEMBER



MONDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JANUARY,

TWO THOUSAND TE

(Typed to the dictation of Sri K.Satyanand,Hon’ble Member)
This is an appeal filed by the opposite party against which the Forum passed an order imposing liability.

The facts that led to filing this appeal are briefly as follows:

The complainant, a Government Teacher, opened a savings Bank account bearing A/c.No.62096853456 on 7-5-2009 with opposite party bank. He submitted that on 7-5-2009 the Salary Disbursing Officer of Z.P.S. school Jalagam Nagar, Khammam District deposited a cheque bearing No771461 for an amount of Rs.50,916/- in S.B.H. Try Branch Khammam-950 for the credit of the complainant towards salary for three months and the same was credited in the account of the complainant as balance available. The complainant submitted that he wanted to incur the said amount for treatment of his father and presented withdrawal slip but the opposite party returned the withdrawal slip on the ground that they withheld the account as per the instructions of higher authorities. The authorities of Gandhi chowk ordered to seize the account to realize the personal loan amount obtained by the complainant in the year 2005. It is the case of the complainant that the said loan was provided to him after executing one employee’s surety, who had got own house and obtaining signatures on blank promissory notes blank cheques and more than 20 to 40 papers and therefore withholding the account is unauthorized and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence the complainant approached the District Forum to pay an amount of Rs.50,916/- together with interest of 24% p.a. from the date of deposit till the date of realization together with compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and costs.

Opposite party filed counter and admitted that the complainant presented a cheque for an amount of Rs.50,916/- and that it withheld the account of the complainant on the advice of higher authorities. It submitted that the complainant availed personal loan from State Bank of Hyderabad, Gandhi Chowk Branch Khammam vide it’s A/c.No.52114413470 for an amount of Rs.50,000/- and availed personal loan from SBH, Yellandu vide A/c.No.62089912912 for an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- on 22-1-2009 and did not pay the instalments and his loan accounts went to NPA and he was due an amount of Rs.45,273.16 ps without interest from 1-3-2006 onwards at SBH Gandhi Chowk Branch, Khammam and due an amount of Rs.2,03,328/- as on 30-4-2009 at SBH Yellandu branch and as such the amount will not be realized unless and until the outstanding amounts were cleared.

In support of his claim, the complainant filed his affidavit and relied upon documents marked as Exs.A1 & A2 while the opposite parties relied upon documents marked as Exs.B1 to B3.

On a consideration of the evidence adduced on both sides, the District Forum came to the conclusion that there was deficiency in service and directed the opposite party to pay Rs.50,916/- with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of deposit till the date of payment within one month together with compensation of Rs.5,000/- and costs of Rs.1,000/-.

Assailing the said order, the opposite party filed the present appeal principally contending interalia that the District Forum lost sight of the valuable trust in the bank enabling it to exercise banker’s lien

Heard both sides.

The point that arises for consideration is whether there are any good grounds to interfere with the order of the District Forum?

This is a peculiar case in which the opposite party bank/appellant particularly its treasury branch at Khammam tried to appropriate the balance amount lying to the complainant towards partial satisfaction of the amounts outstanding due to it in other branches namely Gandhi Chowk branch, Khammam and Yellandu branch Khammam from the complainant cutting across the branches in exercise of its right assuming as existing under the principles of banker’s general lien losing sight of the ground reality that the amount was received by it was the three months’ salary amount of the complainant. As a matter of fact, the amount appropriated was the complainant’s salary in the special purpose salary account every employee, of late, is supposed to open as a requirement insisted upon by the treasury. In this connection the role of the bank is virtually that of an agent of the salary disbursing officer and it is therefore functionally different from the banks performing the usual banking activities. The appropriation of amounts lying with it as deposited salary cannot bypass the provisions of Section 60 CPC which itself regulates even the judicial process from entirely attaching the salary. It is naïve therefore for the bank to contend that its general lien extends even to such amounts which it had come to hold as either agent of the disbursing officer or as trustee of the account holder. In addition to this infirmity, the lien that is sought to be exercised by the appellant for the purpose of bringing benefit to other branches, as a matter of fact, cuts across three branches and on the face of it, it oversteps the scope and ambit of Section 171 of the Indian Contract Act, which reads as follows:

‘S.171. General lien of bankers, factors, wharfingers, attorneys and policy-brokers-Bankers, factors, wharfingers, attorneys of a High Court and policy-brokers may, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, retain as a security for a general balance of account, any goods, bailed to them; but no other persons have a right to retain, as a security for such balance, goods bailed to them, unless there is an express contract to that effect’.

The language of Section 171 envisages the general lien being exercised in respect of general balance of account in contra distinction to a multiplicity of accounts cutting across more than one branch and it is tied down to the retention as security any goods bailed to them which definitely operates in a different field than what we are concerned with in the present factual matrix.

The decisions relied upon by the appellant dealt with a different set of facts and the peculiar facts in the present case throw up totally a different legal inference. In other words, the decisions relied upon by the appellant do not apply to the facts of this case as in the present case it cannot but be reiterated even at the cost of repetition that the elements of agency and trust very much interdict the flow of the consequences in the activation of banker’s lien. Thus we do not see any grounds to interfere with the order of the District Forum.

Accordingly the appeal is dismissed but without costs in the circumstances of the case.

Present : Sri D. Chiranjeevi Babu,

President.
And

Sri N.J. Mohan Rao,

Member.

Smt. V.J. Praveena,

Member.
Tuesday, the 10th day of November, 2009

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.62/2009

Between:

Sri Raghunath Koya, S/o Seetharamaiah,

Age: 42 years, Occu: Deputy General Manager,

State Bank of Hyderabad, Zonal Office,

J.P.N. Road, Warangal – 506002.

… Complainant
And
1) The Managing Director/Partner,

Hollywood Footwear, Abids

Hyderabad – 500 001.

2) Sri I.S.Ajani, Sales Executive,

Hollywood Footwear, Abids,

Hyderabad – 500 001. … Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Complainant :: Sri Ch. Malla Reddy, Advocate.

Opposite Parties :: In-person.

This complaint is coming for final hearing before this Forum, the Forum pronounced the following order.
CC 62/2009 -- 2 --

ORDER

Per Smt.V.J.Praveena, Member.

This complaint is filed by the complainant Sri.Raghunath Koya against the Opposite Parties under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for a direction to replace Lotus Bawa shoes with new shoes and to award compensation of Rs.10,000/- towards mental tension, agony, stress and strain and also humiliation suffered along with Rs.5,000/- towards costs.

The brief averments contained in the complaint filed by the complainant are as follows:

The case of the complainant is that the complainant is the Deputy General Manager, State Bank of Hyderabad, Zonal Office, Warangal. On 27-11-2008 the complainant purchased a pair of Lotus Bawa shoes from Opposite Party No.1 vide bill No.83864 for Rs.1,799/-. In the 2nd week of January, 2009 the colour of said shoes was lost and sole of the left shoe was completely broken in two pieces and the said shoes were unfit for wearing. The complainant surrendered the said shoes to Opposite Parties on 09-02-09 in their shop with a letter and the Opposite Party No.2 issued acknowledgement and promised to send the same to Company and would see for replacement of the same. On 20-03-2009 the Opposite Party No.1 again endorsed on the above said letter that they do not replace the used shoe and only the soles can be replaced. The act of Opposite Parties amounts to deficiency of service. The complainant got issued legal notice to Opposite Parties on 05-05-09 demanding to replace the said shoes with new one. In view of non-receipt of Postal Acknowledgements, the complainant addressed a letter to postal authorities to know about the service of notice. Thereafter the postal authorities sent reply dated 13-06-2009 stating that legal notices were delivered to both Opposite Parties on 13-05-09. But till date no reply was received from the Opposite Parties. The Opposite Parties intentionally refused to replace the shoes. Vexed with the attitude of Opposite Parties, the complainant has no other way except to file this complaint. Hence filed this complaint praying to direct the Opposite Parties to replace the Lotus Bawa shoes with new one and to award compensation of Rs.10,000/- with costs of Rs.5,000/.
CC 62/2009 --3—

With regard to jurisdiction point, the complainant filed a citation reported in 2009 (2) A.P.L.J. 21 (SN) – Dr.B.Mahanlal Naik Vs District Consumer Forum, Mahaboob Nagar in WP No.5363/2009.



The opposite party No.1 filed the Written Version stating that as per Section 11(2) of C.P.Act the District Forum, Warangal does not have any jurisdiction, under no cause of action arose at Warangal and also neither the Opposite Parties nor their branch office situated at Warangal i.e., within the territorial jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Forum and so the complaint is liable to be dismissed. For that he cited some of the Citations. He admitted that the complainant approached the Opposite Party by way of stating that the colour of the shoes was lost and sole of the left shoe got completely broken in two pieces and demanded to replace the shoe with new one and also stated that he is ready for payment of the difference of price, if any. On perusal of the said shoe it appears that some chemical was poured on the shoe, knowingly or unknowingly, the sole of the shoe was damaged. Further they stated that to maintain good relationship with the customers, the Opposite Parties assured to replace the sole of the shoes and requested to handover the shoes for replacement of sole. If sole of the shoe replaced, the shoe will be appeared to be a new one as the defect arose only due to pouring of some chemical upon the shoe. But the complainant not accepted and demanded to replace the shoe with new one. Further they stated that the Opposite Parties are not manufacturers of the shoes as they are only retailers and so informed the complainant that the shoe will be sent to the manufacturer with a request to replace the shoes and the same was informed to the manufacturer of the shoes, but they refused to replace the same with new pair and accepted to replace the sole of the shoe, since the damage happened to sole of shoe only and not entire shoe. The same was informed to the complainant and requested to accept for replacement of sole of the shoe, but the complainant refused to accept the same and demanded for replacement with new one and taken away shoes. If the sole of the shoe replaced with new one it appears to be in good condition and fit for wearing. But the complainant has been demanding for replacement of shoe with new one for the reasons best known to him. Further the Opposite Party stated that the damage of sole happened only due to improper usage of shoes and also pouring of chemical upon the shoe and not due to defect or inferior quality of shoe and so there is no deficiency of service or negligence on the part of the Opposite Parties and the Opposite Parties sold thousands of shoes of LOTUS BAWA to the customers,

CC 62/2009 --4—
but no complaint was received from the customers. So the Opposite Parties are not manufacturers of the shoes and only retailers. So the manufacturer is necessary party for the replacement of shoes. The complainant ought to have added the manufacturer of the shoes as party to the present proceedings of this case. Non-Joinder of manufacturer to the proceedings of this case is bad in law and the same is liable to be dismissed.

The complainant in support of his claim, filed the Affidavit in the form of chief examination and also marked Exs.A-1 to A-11. On behalf of opposite parties Ismali S. Azani filed his Affidavit in the form of chief examination but not marked any documents.

Now the point for consideration is:

1) Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties?

2) If so, to what Relief?

Point No.1:-
After arguments of the complainant’s counsel and after gone through the Written Version and Affidavit of the Opposite Party No.1, our reasons are like this.

The main contention of the Opposite Party No.1 is that this Forum has no jurisdiction to try this matter. For this our answer is that this Forum has certainly got jurisdiction to try this matter. Because as per Section 11 (2) of the Consumer Protection Act, the District Forum, Warangal have

jurisdiction. The comments of the Section 11 (2) is that the complainant shall be instituted in a District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction.



a) the Opposite Party or each of the Opposite Parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides or (carries on business or has a branch office or) personally works for gain; or

CC 62/2009 --5—


b) any of the Opposite Parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides or (carries on business or has a branch office) or personally works for gain provided that in such case either the permission of the District Forum is given or the Opposite Parties who do not reside, or (carry on business or have a branch office) or personally works for gain, as the case may be acquiesce in such institution; or

c) the cause of action, wholly or in part arises.



The complainant though purchased the shoes at Hyderabad in the Opposite Party No.1 shop but he is residing at Warangal and the shoes became defective at Warangal. When the complainant is residing at Warangal and defect arose at Warangal certainly this Forum has got jurisdiction to try this matter.



It is true as per both the parties, it is an admitted fact that the complainant purchased a pair of Lotus Bawa shoes for a sum of Rs.1,799/- on 27-11-2008. But immediately in the 2nd week of January, 2008 the colour of the said shoes was lost and sole of the left shoe was completely broken in to two pieces and the said shoes were unfit for wearing. When the complainant went to the Opposite Party No.1 they refused to give new pair but agreed to repair the same and give it to the complainant, for this the complainant has refused. In this case it is clear that the complainant has purchased the Lotus Bawa shoes from Opposite Party No.1 on 27-11-2008 for a sum of Rs.1,799/- vide bill No. 83864. So as per Ex.A-1 it is clear that the complainant purchased the shoes. When he purchased the shoes, certainly if there is any defect or anything happened to the shoes, certainly the Opposite Parties are liable to replace it. But in this case as per the complainant as well as the admissions of the opposite parties, it is clear, that the colour of the shoes was lost and the sole of the left shoe was completely broken into two pieces. Further the Opposite Parties stated that some chemical was poured on the shoe, knowingly or unknowingly by the complainant on the shoe that is the reason the colour was lost. For this our answer is that no one will pour chemical on the shoe. It is only defect of the shoes. When there is a defect in the shoes, certainly the Opposite Party No.1 is liable to replace it.

CC 62/2009 --6—

Further Ex.A-2 is the letter written by the complainant with regard to defect in the shoes. As per the Ex.A-3 the complainant went to the shop of the Opposite Party No.1 and handed-over the same to the Opposite Party No.1 for replacement of the said shoes. But they stated that they received the shoes on 15-03-2009 and again on 20-03-2009 they endorsed on the Ex.A-3 stating that they do not replace the used shoes. The sole can be replaced. It is clear that the colour of the shoe was lost and sole of the left shoe was broken into two pieces. When the Opposite Party No.1 he himself admitted the same, the colour of the shoe was lost and sole of the left shoe was damaged and broken into two pieces, certainly the Opposite Party No.1 is liable to replace the same shoes. The endorsement on the Ex.A-3 is that when the complainant used the shoes he cannot replace with another shoe. For this our answer is that certainly the Opposite Party No.1 is liable to replace the same because the complainant he himself no doubt has used the same. Suppose if he used for 6 months or one year if he goes to the shop and asked him to replace the same, there is something reason for refusal to replace the shoe. But here in the 2nd week of January, 2009 itself i.e, within a span of 1 ½ month the sole of the left shoe was broken into two pieces and the colour of the shoes was lost. So for this the Opposite Party No.1 is liable to replace the shoe. Lotus Bawa is a reputed brand of shoes, most of the customers prefer to buy the branded shoes irrespective of their price, because they are reliable and durable. If these branded shoes become defective within a span of 2 or 3 months i.e, breaking of sole and fading of the colour of shoes, shows its inferior quality. This inferior quality is not expected in branded items. As the defect arose within a short period, certainly there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. Though the manufacturer is not made a party it is not a bar to the complainant. The complainant has only relation with the shop owner as he bought the same shoes from the opposite party. It is the look-after of the opposite parties to get replaced the defective shoes and the complainant is not concerned with it.
Further the Opposite Party No.1 cited some of the judgments in his Written arguments by way of stating that the complainant is liable to be dismissed on the jurisdiction point i.e.,

1997 III CPJ P-359 (A.P.State Commission)

Territorial Jurisdiction – Code of CPC – Section 20 – Whether a part of cause of action arose at the place from where money is sent – (NO)

1997 III CPJ P-593 (Madhya Pradesh State Commission)

CC 62/2009 --7—

Territorial Jurisdiction – Complaint filed before District Forum, Vidisha - Opposite Party not residing or carrying out its work there - NO part of cause of action arose there – Whether the District Forum, Vidisha has territorial jurisdiction to try the complaint (NO).

1996 (I) CPR P-35

Cause of action would arise where the registered office of the company situated and not the place where the complainant was to receive the shares.



The complainant cited a judgment in 2009 (2) A.P.L.J.21 (SN)

V.Eswaraiah & Vilas V.Afzulpurkar, JJ.

Dr.B.Mohanlal Naik

Vs.

The District Consumer Forum, constituted under Consumer protection Act 1986 W.P.No.5363 of 2009.

Consumer Protection Act 1986, Secs. 11 & 12 – The District Consumer Forum will have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint even if a part of cause of action arises within the jurisdiction of the said forum.


In this case the petitioner is a Doctor, practising at Kurnool and he has treated the 2nd respondent at Kurnool Hospital, and even if there is any deficiency of service, no part of cause of action arose at Mahabubnagar, as admittedly, the 2nd respondent who is a complainant before the District Consumer Forum was treated at Kurnool and thereafter, he was treated at Hyderabad, therefore, it cannot be said that the District Consumer Forum at Mahaboobnagar has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.



A perusal of the complaint goes to show that the complainant issued a legal notice dated; 26-04-2008, calling upon the petitioner herein and other Doctor to pay a sum of Rs.9 lakhs towards loss and damage sustained by him by reason of deficiency of service and the said notice was received by the petitioner herein and another and replies were also sent and the said replies were received at Nagarkurnool of Mahaboobnagar District on 09-05-2008 and 05-06-2008 and thus, cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the District Consumer Forum of Mahaboobnagar.

CC 62/2009 --8—

Under Section 11 (2) (c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the District Consumer Forum will have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint even if part of cause of action arises within its jurisdiction. The fact that the legal notice was emanated within the jurisdiction of the District Consumer Forum, Mahaboobnagar and replies sent by the petitioner and another were also received by the complainant within the territorial jurisdiction of the Mahaboobnagar, and therefore, it cannot be said that the District Consumer Forum at Mahaboobnagar has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the Consumer Dispute. There are no merits in the Writ Petition.



In the present case also the complainant purchased shoes at Hyderabad, and he is the resident of Warangal and from Warangal the entire transactions took place i.e. by sending notices to the Opposite Parties. As per Ex.A-2 the complainant sent a letter to the Opposite Party No.1 on 09-02-2008 from Warangal itself. Further the complainant sent legal notice i.e. Ex.A-4 to the Opposite Parties on 05-05-2009 from Warangal only. Further the complainant addressed a letter to the Superintendent of Post Office, Subedari, Hanamkonda, Warangal for non-receipt of two original Acknowledgements at Subedari Post Office on 12-05-2009 vide R.L. Nos.3555 and 3556 i.e. (Ex.A-5 and Ex.A-6) and addressed to Hyderabad regarding. On 05-06-2009 the same letter was addressed to him from Warangal only. The Ex.A-9 also goes to show that the letter sent by the Post Office, Subedari to Advocate for complainant and addressee at Hanamkonda. The Ex.A-10 it is also from Hanamkonda only. So all these letters shows that the letters and notices addressed by the complainant to the Opposite Parties from Warangal only. Except purchasing of the shoes and paid the amount to the Opposite Party, other transactions took place from Warangal only. When the entire other transactions took place from Hanamkonda/Warangal, the Section 11 (2) (c) was applicable and this Forum has got jurisdiction to try this matter. We accept the A.P.L.J. i.e. above cited judgment and come to the conclusion that this Forum has got jurisdiction to try this matter. Whatever the judgments cited by the Opposite Party those facts are different and facts in the above cited judgment filed by the complainant in A.P.L.J, that judgment is clearly applicable to the case of the complainant. Because Section 11 (2) (c) of the Consumer Protection Act is clearly applicable for this case. So this Forum has got jurisdiction to try this matter.







CC 62/2009 --9—



With regard to the facts of this case, we already stated in supra. When we already stated supra that this Forum has got jurisdiction to try this matter, when there is negligence and deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Parties, certainly the Opposite Parties are liable to replace the shoes or he has to pay the cost of the shoes.
For the foregoing reasons given by us, we come to the conclusion that the Opposite Parties are liable to replace the shoes or they have to pay damages and accordingly this first point is decided in favour of complainant against the Opposite Parties.

Point No.2: To what Relief:- The first point is decided in favour of complainant against the opposite parties this point is also decided in favour of complainant against the opposite parties.
In the result, this complaint is allowed and we direct the Opposite Parties to replace the Lotus Bawa shoes or to pay the cost of the shoes to the complainant. The Opposite Parties are also directed to pay an amount of Rs.2,000/- (Rs.Two thousand only) towards compensation for mental agony and Rs.500/- (Rs.Five Hundred only) towards costs.

A month’s time is granted to the Opposite Parties for the compliance of the order.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum today, the 10th November, 2009).
President Lady Member Male Member

District Consumer Forum, Warangal

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

On behalf of Complainant On behalf of Opposite Parties

Affidavit of complainant filed. Affidavit of opposite party No.1 filed.

EXHIBITS MARKED

ON BEHALF OF COMPLAINANT

1. Ex.A-1 is the original Cash Memo No.83864 issued by opposite party NO.1.

2. Ex.A-2 is the letter from complainant to opposite party No.1, dt.09-02-09.
CC 62/2009 --10—


3. Ex.A-3 is the receipt of the Lotus Bawa Shoe by opposite party No.2 from the complainant, dt.15-03-09.

4. Ex.A-4 is the office copy of legal notice issued to the opposite

parties, dt.05-05-09.

5. Ex.A-5 & A-6 are the postal receipts.

6. Ex.A-7 is the letter to the Post Master, Subedari, Hanamkonda,

dt.28-05-09.

7. Ex.A-8 is the letter from Complainant’s Advocate to the

Superintendent, Post Offices, Subedari, Hanamkonda, dt.05-06-09.

8. Ex.A-9 is the letter from Department of Posts, O/o Superintendent of

Post Offices, Hanamkonda to Complainant’s Advocate, dt.02-06-09.

9. Ex.A-10 letter from Department of Posts, O/o Superintendent of

Post Offices, Hanamkonda to Complainant’s Advocate, dt.13-06-09.

10. Ex.A-11 is the Xerox copy of matter pertaining to Lotus Bawa shoes.

CONSUMER complaint NO. 129 OF 2007

Between:
M.Santhoshkumar, S/o. Venkatesham, Age 26 years, Occ: Business, R/o. 2-8-200, Mukarampura, Karimnagar.
… Complainant
AND

1. The Branch Manager, State Bank of Hyderabad, Main Branch, Karimnagar.

2. The General Manager, District Industrial Centre, Padmanagar, Karimnagar.

… Opposite Parties

This complaint is coming up before us for final hearing on 18-12-2007, in the presence of complainant and Sri M. Rama Rao, Advocate for opposite party no.1. The opposite party no.2 remained exparte, and on perusing the material papers on record, and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Forum passed the following:

::ORDER::

1. This complaint is filed against State Bank of Hyderabad, Main Branch, Karimnagar and The General Manger, District Industrial Centre, Karimnagar seeking direction for payment of Rs.2,500/- towards refund of excess received amount, Rs.5,000/- toward compensation, damages, inconvenience and costs.



2. The brief averments of the complaint are that the complainant obtained loan under P.M.R.Y. Scheme from the opposite party no.1. The loan was paid in monthly instalments in the CTL account no.01556/060646 to the opposite party no.1. The opposite party no.2 granted subsidy of Rs.7,500/- to the complainant. The opposite party no.1 has not deducted the subsidy amount from the principle amount and deposited the same separately due to which more interest is accumulated on the loan amount. The complainant paid the entire loan amount with interest to the opposite party no.1. The interest on the subsidy amount comes to Rs.2,500/- which the opposite party no.1 has not deducted from the loan amount. The complainant, in this regard made representation to the opposite party no.1 and 2 who did not give any reply. The acts of the opposite part no.1 constitutes deficiency of services. Hence, prayed to allow the complaint.


3. The opposite party no.2 remained exparte.


4. The opposite party no.1 filed counter stating that the complainant was sanctioned loan amount of Rs.50,000/- and he paid Rs.2,500/- towards margin money. The opposite party no.1 sanctioned Rs.47,500/- loan on 12.08.1999 under PMRY Scheme payable with interest @ 12.75% per annum. The complainant paid the loan amount in irregular monthly instalments and some times made lumpsum payments. However the loan was liquidated within the schedule time. The opposite party no.2 granted subsidy of Rs.7,500/- to the complainant on 10.08.2000 and said amount was kept in term deposit for interest @10% per annum. It is submitted the said amount of subsidy is treated as backend subsidy and it is credited to the account of the complainant at the time of closure of the loan account.

5. It is submitted that the opposite party no.1 bank paid Rs.2,587/- towards interest on deposit of Rs.7,500/- @ 10% per annum from 10.08.2000 to 26.08.2003. The subsidy amount and interest total amount of Rs.10,087/- was credited to the loan amount on 26.08.2003. The amount as payable to the complainant is as follows:-

1. Interest collected on loan amount of Rs.47,500/-

from 17.08.1999 to 26.08.2003. Rs.19,235-00

2. Deductions:

Interest to be collected on loan amount of

Rs.40,000/- while exclusing subsidy amount of

Rs.7,500/-. Rs.16,197-00

3. Difference amount to be paid. Rs. 3,038-00

Out of which the opposite party no.1 paid

Interest on TDR of Rs.7,500/- is Rs. 2,587-00

4. Difference amount to be paid. Rs. 451-00



6. The opposite party no.1 paid herewith the amount of Rs.451/- through banker cheque no.467275 dated 26.10.2007/- being the amount of difference of interest collected on loan account and interest paid on deposit amount. The opposite party no.1 has not received any excess amount towards loan transaction of complainant. The complainant is not entitled to claim Rs.2500/-. He is entitled to receive Rs.451/- only. There is no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party no.1. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the complaint.



7. The complainant filed his Affidavit reiterating the averments made in the complaint his documents are marked as Ex.A1 to Ex.A4. Ex.A1 is the original CTL account pass book bearing no. 01556/060646 issued by the opposite party no.1. Ex.A2 is the letter dated 27.01.2004 addressed to the opposite party no.2 by the complainant. Ex.A3 and Ex.4 are the courier receipts



8. The opposite party no.1 filed his Affidavit reiterating the averments made in the counter, his documents are marked as Ex.B1 to Ex.B4. Ex.B1 is the statement of account bearing 015506060646 from 23.07.1999 to 31.08.2003 issued by opposite party no.1. Ex.B2 is the statement of account bearing 015506060646 dated 17.07.2007 issued by opposite party no.1. Ex.B3 is the statement of account from 10.08.2000 to 14.07.2005 issued by opposite party no.1. Ex.B4 is the original bank cheque bearing no.467275 dated 26.10.2007 for Rs.451/- issued by opposite party no.1.



9. The Points for consideration are:-

i) Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of

opposite parties ?

(ii) If so what relief, the complaint is entitled to?.

7. POINT NO.1: There is no dispute with regard to the sanction and payment of the loan amount to the complainant and repayment of the loan amount by the complainant to the opposite party no.1. The dispute in between the parties is over the interest on the subsidy amount of Rs.7,500/- granted by the opposite party no.2. The complainant states that the opposite party no.1 has not paid interest on the amount of Rs.7500/-. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the opposite party no.1 that the amount of Rs.7500/- granted to the complainant as subsidy by the opposite party no.2 was kept on 10.08.2000 in term deposit for the interest @10% per annum. The complainant addressed letter under Ex.A2 to the opposite party no.2 informing him that he has paid entire monthly installments till 17.06.2003 and even after that he has not received subsidy amount, Rs.7500/-. The complainant requested the opposite party no.2 to sanction subsidy amount of Rs.7500/-. A copy of Ex.A2 was addressed to the opposite party no.1. Ex.A3 and Ex.A4 are receipts issued by Sanchar Couriers, Karimnagar. Both parties have not filed guidelines for sanction of, subsidy and repayment of loan amount. The complainant has to prove that he is entitled to the amount of Rs.2,500/- claimed towards interest on the subsidy amount of Rs.7,500/-. At the same time the opposite party no.1 also is not fair enough in not paying the amount due to the complainant.


8. The complainant has paid the loan amount in installments. The learned counsel for the opposite party no.1 has contended that the complainant was irregular in paying the installments. Ex.B1, statement of account bearing no.01556060646 pertaining to the complainant shows that Rs.47,500/-was credited to the account of the complainant on 17.08.1999 and prior to that the complainant deposited margin money of Rs.2,500/- on 23.07.1999.

9. The opposite party no.2 granted subsidy amount of Rs.7,500/- to the complainant on 10-08-2000. The opposite party no.1 states that “subsidy amount is treated as backend subsidy and credited to the account at the time of closing of the loan”. “Our Bank paid the interest on deposit of Rs.7,500/- @ 10% per annum form 10-08-2000 to 26-08-2003 for 2,587/-”. Ex.B2 shows that an amount of Rs.10,087/- is credited to the account of the complainant on 26-08-2003. The opposite party no.1 has charged interest on the loan amount as follows:



1. Interest collected on loan amount of Rs.47,500/-

from 17.08.1999 to 26.08.2003. Rs.19,235-00

2. Deductions:

Interest to be collected on loan amount of

Rs.40,000/- while exclusing subsidy amount of

Rs.7,500/-. Rs.16,197-00

3. Difference amount to be paid. Rs. 3,038-00

Out of which the opposite party no.1 paid

Interest on TDR of Rs.7,500/- is Rs. 2,587-00

4. Difference amount to be paid. Rs. 451-00



10. The opposite party no.1 has not stated under what provision of law or under which agreement they can keep the subsidy amount in term deposit @10% per annum. There is no evidence that the subsidy amount is kept in back end deposit. The complainant also, in the absence of any agreement in this regard, cannot demand the interest of Rs.2,500/- on subsidy amount, as a matter of right. Even other wise, as aforesaid the interest on the subsidy amount, was credited by the opposite party no.1 to the account of the complainant on 26-08-2003. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party no.1 so far as the payment of the interest on the subsidy amount is concerned. However, we find there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party no.1 in keeping with them the amount of Rs.451/- (now paid in this case) evenafter the complainant has paid the entire loan amount on 26-08-2003 and after the closing of his loan account. Therefore, we award an amount of Rs.
11. POINT NO.2: In the result, the complaint is allowed in part directing the opposite party no.1 to pay Rs.500/- towards compensation and Rs.500/- towards costs within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order.

C.C. No. 122 of 2008

Between:

Md. Faqruddin S/o Gaisuddin

Aged about 44 years,Occ: Business,

Indian, O/o: A.P.Traders,

Opp. SBH, Vikarabad- 501101,

R.R. District ….. Complainant

And

1) The State Bank of Hyderabad,

Vikarabad Branch,

Vikarabad – 501101,

R.R.District.

Rep By its Branch Manager.
2) The State Bank of Hyderabad,

Main Branch, Gun foundry,

Hyderabad.

Rep By its General Manager. ….. Opposite parties

Counsel for the Complainant : Sri. N.Srinivasa Rao, Advocate

Counsel for the Opposite Parties : M/s Sunkari Gourish, Advocates

QUORUM: 1. Sri. M.RAMA RAO, PRESIDENT

2. Smt.C.PREETHI, LADY MEMBER

3. Sri.V.V.L.NARASIMHA RAO, MEMBER

( PER HON’BLE Sri. V.V. L.NARASIMHA RAO, MEMBER ON BEHALF OF THE BENCH)

ON THIS THE 31st DAY of DECEMBER, 2009

ORDER

I. The complainant has filed the present complaint on 15-07-08 U/S.

12 of C.P. Act, against the opposite party requesting this Forum to (a) Refund the illegally deducted amount of Rs.1,52,959/- along with the interest @ 24% p.a. from 21.4.2008 till the date of realization. (b) direct the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) towards the compensation for causing mental agony due to the negligence of the opposite party. (c) award costs of Rs.10,000/- and pass such other order or orders as this Honorable Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.


II The brief facts of the complaint are as follows:

1) The complainant is having S.B.Account (NRI) vide A/c.No.52128205985 with the OP-1 and requested for FDR’s in respects of complainant’s Account. The OP-2 has issued Two FDR’s (1) 55648 date of issue on 12-11-2001, amount Rs.20,245/- @ 11% interest for the period of 78 months, which was renewed on 04.06.2007 with Rs.40,987/- @ 8.75% interest for 78 months and the Maturity dt.16.01.2014. (2) 60061 Date of issue on 18.03.2002, amount Rs.85,687/- @ 9% interest for the period of 36 months, which was renewed on 15-11-2007 with Rs.1,32,657/- @ 9% interest for 36 months and the Maturity dt.22-10-2010.



2) On 29-01-2008 the OP No.1 sent a letter to the complainant stating,

“earlier the 2 Cheques in favour of M/s Visakha Cement Industry Ltd., were received from the bank of Punjab Ltd., Panjagutta, Hyderabad and in Letter dt.29.1.2008, OP-1 has demanded complainant to remit the amount of Rs.1,50,000/- along with interest @ 9% p.a. from 13-04-2006 immediately. The Complainant has approached the OP-1 stating “already his account was closed in the year 2006 and also reminded that, earlier at the time of closing his account the OP-1 has collected an amount of Rs.18,000/- as OD promising to provide Housing Loan, but the Housing Loan was not provided”.

3) On 06-02-2007 the complainant wrote a letter to the OP-1 to stop honoring the two cheques bearing No. 589802 & 589803 given to Mr.Abdul Sattar of totaling Rs.1,00,000/- (each Rs.50,000/-) which were given towards expenses of HAJ Pilgrimage. Inspite of the prior intimation also OP-1 intentionally honoring the two cheques, due to that reason Complainant has filed CC.No.115 of 2007 on 16.7.2007 against the OP-1 before the Ranga Reddy District consumer Forum.

4) On 12-02-2008 the complainant has received another Letter from the Opposite Party “to pay Rs.1,50,000/- with interest from 13-04-2006 as
demanded”. After receiving Letter from OP-1, complainant got issued Legal Notice to the OP-1 stating “already the A/c. No.5216205985 was closed in the year 2006 and also objected the OP-1 for adjusting the 3 Cheques amount from the FDR’s and also stated Rules for Right to Set-off from the Deposits does not arise”.

5) The actual date of maturity for the 2 FDR’s is 16-01-2014 and 22-10-2010. Despite objection of the complainant for adjusting the amount Rs.1,52,959/- from the two FDR’s belonging to the Complainant (vide Legal Notice), the Opposite Party No.1 has adjusted Rs.1,52,959/- (i.e. 3 Cheques Amount Rs. 1,50,000/- + along with interest amount Rs.2,959/-) as per Letter dt.21-04-2008, and sent the balance amount of Rs.22,866/- vide Demand Draft No.45234 on the name of complainant.

6) The complainant states, the act of the opposite party no.1 amounts to deficiency of service and Unfair Trade Practice and also as the Opposite Party No.2 is the Head Office of Opposite Party No.1 both OP-1 & 2 are liable for to refund Rs.1,52,959/- along with 24% interest p.a. and for compensation for the mental torture and agony and Costs. Hence, this complaint against the Opposite Parties 1 and 2.



III. Notices served to the opposite parties. OP No.1 filed Counter Affidavit and the same was adopted by the OP No.2 vide Adoption Memo. The OP No.1 has filed Chief Affidavit, Written & Oral Arguments and not filed any document.



1) The Complainant has filed Chief Affidavit and Oral Arguments reiterating the averments of Complaint. At the time of Enquiry the 8 documents were marked as Ex.A1 to A8 and also filed a Case Law 1986 – 2004 Consumer 7781 (NS) in support of his Case.



2) In the Counter Affidavit, Chief Affidavit & Written Arguments the OP-1 & 2 has denied the averments of the Complainants and stated “as per the Banking Rules Right to Set Off” and there is no deficiency of service on

their part. The OP No.1 & 2 submitted Oral Arguments, reiterating the averments of counter and not furnished any Banking Rules.

IV. Now the points for consideration are:-

1. Whether there is deficiency in service and Unfair Trade Practice on the

part of the opposite party.

2. To what relief the complainant is entitled?

V. POINT No.1 :

Ex.A3 dt. 29-01-2008 is the letter of OP-1, demanding the complainant to pay Rs.1,50,000/- along with 9% interest from 13-04-2006 vide 3 Cheques (1) 100088 dt.27-03-2006 for Rs.50,000/- (2) 100089 dt.31-03-2006 for

Rs.50,000/-(3) 100090 dt.31-03-2006 for Rs.50,000/-. Ex.A4 dt. 12-02-2008 is the Reminder letter of the OP-1 demanding the complainant, for payment of Rs.1,50,000/- along with 9% interest on OR before 22-02-2008 for payment of 3 Cheques. Ex.A5 is the Legal Notice given to the OP-1 “Stating the Account was already closed in the year 2006 & Right to set off

from the Fixed Deposits does not arise and objecting for Honouring the 3 Cheques vide No’s 100088 to 100090 each amounting to Rs.50,000/- “Ex.A6 is the reply Notice of OP-1 to Ex.A5 stating “As per bank rules Bank can adjust amount from the Term Deposits even before maturity by exercising the Right of set Off and the Banking Rules are binding on complainant” (mentioned in Page-2). Ex.A7 dt.21.4.2008 is the letter of OP-1 sent to the Complainant along with Demand Draft (Ex.A8) for Rs.22,866/, on the name of Complainant, after deducting Rs.1,52,959/- ( ie 1,50,000/- + Rs.2,959/- interest @ 9% from 29-01-2008) from the FDR’s (Ex.A1.,A2).



1) As per Case on hand, Point to be decided is : Whether the OP-1 Bank can rely upon the General Bank Lien and adjust the amount of Rs.1,52,959/- from the Complainant’s 2 FDR’s (Ex.A1,A2) in the absence of the contract.

2) The Complainant kept his amount with OP-1/Bank vide 2 FDR’s, i.e Ex.A1 dt.12.11.2001, Ex.A2 dt.18-03-2002 respectively. The complainant



closed his Bank A/c. No.5216205985 in the OP-1 Bank in the year 2006. Thereafter M/s Visakha Cement Industry presented the 3 Cheques and found the Complainant’s Bank Account was closed. Then OP-1 sent Ex.A3, A4 to the Complainant and the Complainant got issued a Legal Notice i.e.Ex.A5 Objecting the OP-1 not to adjust the 3 Cheques Amount Rs.1,52,959/- from the two FDR’s belonging to him. Then the OP-1 gave a Reply Notice dt.28-03-2008 i.e Ex.A6 to the Complainant stating bank has got LIEN “Bank can adjust the dues from the Term Deposits even before maturity by exercising Right of Set off and Complainant has to abide for the Bank Rules and Regulations”.



3. In the Case of Punjab National Bank Vs Shri. Sita Ram Sharma, reported in National Commission and Supreme Court on Consumer Cases 1986 to 2004 (Part-V), Observing the Case Law Syndicate Bank Vs Vijay Kumar Hon’ble National Commission held “Deficiency in service – Bank - No agreement between bank and complainant to appropriate amount of FDR towards liability of Ms X – Whether Bank deficient in service? – Yes”.



4. As per the Case Law Syndicate Bank Vs Vijay Kumar AIR 1992 Supreme Court 1066 - Hon’ble Supreme Court held “Bank had a Right of Set Off in respect of the FDR’s, if there was a liability of the Judgement –

Debtor due to the Bank - Bank Guarantee discharged by the Court – Attachment of FDR’s – Permissible only to the extent or balance remaining after adjustment of its dues by bank – Bank has General Lien over the Two FDR’s we set aside the order of the High Court – Appeal allowed”



5) As per Sec.171 of Indian Contract Act-1872 :- General Lien of Bankers, Factors Wharfingers, Attorneys and Policy Brokers : Bankers, factors, Wharfingers, attorneys of High Court and the Policy brokers may, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, retain as a security for a general balance of account, any Goods bailed to them; but no other persons have a

right to retain, as a security for such balance goods bailed to them, “unless there is an express contract to that effect”.

6. Here in this case, there is no consent from the Complainant to the OP-1 to adjust Rs.1,52,959/- from Ex.A1, A2 as per the Section 171 of Indian Contract Act-1872. Further the Complainant has objected the OP-1 (Vide Ex.A5) for deduction of Rs.1,52,959/- from Ex.A1, A2. So OP-1 Cannot rely upon the Bank Lien and Set Off.



7) On observing the entire Averments of both sides, Ex.A3,A4,A7,A8, along with Case Laws and Sec.171 of Indian Contract Act-1872 , District Forum came to concludes, “The deduction of Rs.1,52,959/- from Ex.A1,A2 by OP-1 amounts to deficiency of Service and Unfair Trade Practice on part of the OP-1”.



8) In this matter OP-2 is the Head Office of the OP-1 and supported the version of the OP-1 to defend the case. OP-2 being Head Office of OP-1., is also responsible for the acts of the OP-1. So both OP-1 & 2 are jointly held liable for the Deficiency of Service and Unfair Trade Practice.

Accordingly Point No.1 is answered.



POINT No.2 : As there is Deficiency of Service and Unfair Trade Practice on part of the OP-1 & 2., The OP-1 & 2 are directed to refund Rs.1,52,959/- to the Complainant along with 12% interest PA from 21.4.2008 till realization and also directed to pay Rs.2,500/- towards Costs to the Complainant.

Accordingly Point No.2 is answered.

In the result the complaint is partly allowed directing the OP-1 & 2 (1) to refund Rs.1,52,959/- (Rupees One Lakh, Fifty Two Thousand, Nine Hundred and Fifty Nine only) along with 12% interest p.a. from 21-04-2008 till realization to the Complainant (2) To pay Rs.2,500/- (Rupees Two Five Hundred Only) to the Complainant towards costs. This Order has to be complied within 30 days from the

date of communication of this Order.

Dictated to Steno Typist, transcribed by her corrected by me pronounced by us in the open forum on this the 31st day of December, 2009.

CC.No.96 of 2008

BETWEEN:

Patchipulusu Chandra Sekhar,

S/o Ranganayakulu,

R/o C/o J.R.K.V. Prasad,

D.No.12-17-44-B, 2nd floor,

Somuvari Street, Kothapet,

Guntur. … Complainant

and



The Branch Manager,

State Bank of Hyderabad,

Kothapet branch, Guntur. …Opposite Party

This complaint is coming up before us for hearing on 25.11.2009 in the presence of Sri Ch. Srinvasa Rao, advocate for complainant and of Sri B.S.R. Sekhar, Advocate for opposite party, upon perusing the material on record, after hearing both sides and having stood over till this day for consideration this Forum made the following:-

O R D E R

Per Sri T. Anjaneyulu, President:-

This complaint is filed U/S 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the complainant claiming a sum of Rs.3,65,000/- from opposite party.

The case in brief is that, complainant approached opposite party along with one Padarthi Bose Babu and deposited Rs.3,00,000/- as term deposit for a period of two years with joint account operating system and opposite party has issued receipt dated 13-09-05 b.no.240118. Subsequently, complainant came to know that the opposite party paid the amount to Padarthi Bose Babu without knowledge, consent and without his signature, released the amount prior to the date of maturity which is absolutely illegal. When complainant questioned the same, opposite party replied that they have obtained signatures correctly. All the signatures at the time of with drawals in the records of opposite party do not belongs to complainant and forged signatures are found basing on which opposite party has paid amount to Padarthi Bose Babu which is not tenable under law. The duty cast upon opposite party to compare signatures and release the amount. Without making proper verification the opposite party blindly released the amount to said Padarthi Bose Babu.

Subsequently, complainant came to know that opposite party filed criminal case against said Padarthi Bose Babu for the offence of cheating and forgery and opposite party recovered the amount from said Padarthi Bose Babu. The complainant previously addressed a letter dated 22-09-07 requesting opposite party to do justice and pay amount to him. But there is no response from opposite party. Though the amount was kept in joint account, it actually belongs to complainant, the above acts on the part of opposite party amounts to deficiency of service. The opposite party was negligent which caused mental agony to complainant. Finally, complainant got issued legal notice on 08-04-08 for payment of term deposit amount but failed to pay the same. Hence, complaint for a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- being term deposit amount, Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and Rs.15,000/- towards legal expenses aggregating in all Rs.3,65,000/-. It is also prayed to award legal expenses.

The opposite party Bank has filed its version in the following manner: It has denied all allegations made in the complaint. It is false to state that complainant came to know that opposite party paid amount to Padarthi Bose Babu without knowledge and consent and signature of complainant and released amount prior to date of maturity. It is also incorrect to state that signatures made at the time of withdrawl are different and do not belong to complainant and that they are forged one. It is false to allege that without making proper verification opposite party blindly released the amount and that opposite party subsequently collected the amount from said Padarthi Bose Babu. The further submissions are as follows:

It is true that complainant approached opposite party along with one Padarthi Bose Babu and deposited Rs.3,00,000/- under term deposit for a period of two years with joint operating system and issued term deposit receipt dt.13-09-05 b.no.240118. Prior to the date of maturity complainant and Padarthi Bose Babu came to the branch and both of them signed jointly on withdrawal forms and withdrew the amount and requested opposite party to transfer the same to the account of Padarthi Bose Babu. On verification of signatures of both parties payment was made and on the request of complainant, the amount was transferred to the account of Padarthi Bose Babu. They have also handed over the original deposit receipt to opposite party. It seems, subsequently, there may be differences in between them and for that this opposite party is no way concerned with their differences. The complainant came to the Bank and intimated that behind his back and knowledge, Padarthi Bose Babu got the aforesaid transaction with forged signature of complainant. Though, the aforesaid transaction is directly done according to Bank rules and subsequent to proper verification of signatures of both parties i.e., joint account holders and on submission of original receipt, opposite party with an abundant caution reported the matter to the police authorities to be enquired into. There is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party. It is submitted that depositors are at liberty to withdraw their deposited amount at any time before the date of maturity. It is once again reiterated that this opposite party never caused any deficiency of service to the complainant and the aforesaid transaction is directly done in accordance with the rules and regulations of opposite party. It is further submitted that due to paucity of information it could not traverse about other allegations. The opposite party reserves its right to file additional version if necessary during the course of hearing. Such other allegations which are not specifically denied and admitted are deemed to have been denied and the complainant is put to strict proof of same. Therefore, it is prayed to dismiss the complaint with exemplary costs.

Both sides have filed their affidavits. On behalf of complainant Exs.A-1 to A-3 are marked. Ex.A-1 is the Xerox copy of term deposit receipt for Rs.3,00,000/- which is in the name of Padarthi Bose babu and Patchipulusu Chandra Sekhar under joint account. The maturity date is 13-09-07 on which date an amount of Rs.3,36,618/- is payable. Ex.A-2 is copy of legal notice dated 08-04-08 got issued by complainant to the Branch Manager of opposite party Bank demanding payment under term deposit along with interest and compensation. Ex.A-3 is the postal receipt.

Now the points for consideration are that:

1. Whether the complainant is entitled for amount as sought for?

2. To what relief?



POINT No.1:- The case of complainant is that complainant and one Padarthi Bose Babu have deposited a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- as term deposit in the Bank of opposite party vide receipt dated 30-09-05 under Ex.A-1 and subsequently without his knowledge, consent and making signature, even before the maturity date, the amount was released in favour of Padarthi Bose Babu. According to him this is not in accordance with Bank rules and signatures contained in the records of the Bank do not belong to complainant. On his protest the opposite party has also initiated criminal action against Padarthi Bose Babu and recovered the amount from him. It is also his submission that though the amount was kept in deposit under joint account actually the amount belongs to complainant. When demanded orally, written representation dated 22-09-07 and as well as through legal notice still the amount remains unpaid as such he is constrained to file this complaint.

It is admitted case of Bank that both complainant and Padarthi Bose Babu have deposited a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- under receipt No.13-09-05 and subsequently, both of them have approached their Bank for release of amount. As such, after due verification and obtaining signatures of both parties and as per consent given by complainant the amount was released and transferred to the account of Padarthi Bose Babu. The Bank put forth that rules permit for release of amount even though maturity date is not expired. Therefore, Bank claims that they have diligently discharged their duties as per norms of Bank. It is claimed by opposite party that complainant making false allegations about giving police complaint and filing criminal case without mentioning crime number and case number and other particulars. They also deny that in the criminal case they recovered amount from Padarthi Bose Babu. It is the contention of Bank that complainant is having full knowledge about withdrawl of amount with his consent. Due to difference in between them, they approached Bank once again making ghalata, as such the Manager intimated the police about said ghalata and except that intimation no complaint is lodged. It is well known fact to both of them that as it was a joint FDR, they jointly withdrew the amount after completing formalities as per Banking rules.

On perusal of allegations and counter allegations of parties and on giving due consideration to the submissions made by respective parties, prima facie we are of opinion that the present complaint is not maintainable within the purview of provisions of Consume Protection Act. As seen from copy of FDR the 1st name noted as Padarthi Bose babu and 2nd name as that of complainant. It is a joint account holders term deposit. According to Bank, the amount is withdrawn even before its maturity date on submission of original FDR and on due completion of formalities as per Banking norms. The Bank also alleges that both of them have signed in their records and withdrew the amount. The amount so withdrawn was transferred to the account of Padarthi Bose Babu, subsequently both complainant and Padarthi Bose Babu approached the Bank due to their differences and made some furore during working hours of Bank as such, the Manager informed about the same to police except that fact no specific complaint is lodged about forgery or fraudulent transaction as alleged. They deny about initiation of criminal proceedings and recovery of money from Padarthi Bose Babu.

The complainant for the reasons best known to him did not join Padarthi Bose babu as co-complainant or as opposite party in this dispute. Had Padarthi Bose Babu is on record we would have heard his say. Complainant did not furnish any information or particulars about criminal case or recovery of amount as alleged by the Bank. It is the specific case of Bank that they have rightly followed the procedure in releasing the amount after obtaining necessary signatures of both parties and completing the formalities. Therefore, the allegation that Bank has committed mistake in releasing the amount in absence of complainant and that it filed a criminal case against Padarthi Bose Babu and subsequently recovered the amount is not believable. Thus, there appears to us no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party Bank. If complainant is so advised, he may approach the Civil Court for suitable remedy against Bank and as well as Padarthi Bose babu to establish that the amount which was deposited exclusively belongs to him and that he alone is entitled for the same. Thus in the aforesaid discussions, we do not find that Bank has committed any deficiency of service to the complainant.

POINTS 2 & 3:- In view of findings given above the complainant is not entitled for any amount as sought for from the Bank. Accordingly, the complaint is dismissed without costs.