Useful Information Customer Care Address Popular Judgments
FAQ Consumer Forum Reliance Karnataka Country Club Bajaj Allianz State Bank Of India
Court Fee Airtel Chandigarh Idea ICICI Lombord Andhra Bank
Where to file Complaint Vodafon Bengal Tata Indicom HDFC Standard Life HDFC Bank
Notice Sample Idea Uttarakhand Airtel IffcoTokio Icici Bank
First Appeal Consumer Forum BSNL Gujarat Reliance Metlife Punjab National Bank
Consumer Protection Act Nokia Rajasthan Vodafone SBI Life Insurance Bank Of India
RTI for Banks Micromax Assam Mobile Store Reliance General Insurance Canara Bank
Insurance Ombudsman Lava Uttar Pradesh MTNL New India Insurance Bank Of Baroda
Banking Ombudsman Karbonn Jharkhand Birla Sun Life National Insurance United India Insurance
How to start DND Sony Bihar LIC Oriental Insurance State Bank Mysore
Irctc TATA AIG India Bank


+ Submit Your Complaint
Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: Mandya City Co-operative Bank Ltd

  1. #1
    admin is offline Administrator
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    3,015

    Default Mandya City Co-operative Bank Ltd


    DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANDYA

    No.2083/1, Subhash Nagar, 1st Cross, Mandya-571401

    consumer case(CC) No. CC/08/140

    Sri.G.M.Jayashankar
    ...........Appellant(s)
    Vs.

    Mandya City Co-operative Bank Ltd.
    ...........Respondent(s)

    BEFORE:
    1. Smt.A.P.Mahadevamma
    2. Sri.M.N.Manohara
    3. Sri.Siddegowda

    Date of complaint 31.12.2008 Date of service of notice to Opposite party 13.01.2009 Date of order 30.03.2009 Total Period 2 Months 17 Days Result Complaint is allowed, directing Opposite party to pay Rs.87,585/- with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of complaint till realisation with cost of Rs.2,000/-. Sri.Siddegowda, President

    1. This complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 for a direction to the Opposite party to pay Rs.87,585/- and compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- with costs.


    2. The case of the complainant is that he is a Account Holder in the Opposite party Bank having S.B. A/c No.7307 from 07.12.2001. The complainant has made transaction from 06.12.2006 and the Opposite party has made entries in the pass book and the complainant has believed the same. But the Opposite party has not recorded the transaction properly in ledger and committed deficiency in service. On 13.03.2008, when the complainant went to draw the amount, which was not mentioned in the pass book, he sought for the difference of amount in his account in writing, but the Opposite party did not respond. The Opposite party has filed complaint in Crime No.62/2008 on 04.04.2008 before Mandya West Police Station against some Bank Employees, complaining mis-appropriation of the amount and committing fraud and dis-honesty to the customers and in that complaint the difference of amount in respect of the complainant between the pass book and the ledger is mentioned. Therefore, the present complaint is filed for the above relief.


    3. The Opposite party has filed version, admitting that the complainant is a Consumer. The detail of the statement shown in the complaint is nothing, but a concocted theory to have wrongful gain. It is false that the entries found in the pass book of the complainant have not been shown in the ledger extract maintained by the Opposite party. Since, the pass book has been fabricated in collusion with the suspended employees of the bank, the entries found in the pass book are not supposed to find a place in the ledger extract. It is false that the complainant approached the Opposite party Bank on 13.03.2008 and questioned the employees of the Opposite party Bank with regard to the not mentioning of the entries in the ledger extract. Mere lodging of the complaint before the police is not a conclusive proof of the allegations made in the complaint. Just because the entries in the pass book are not tallied with the ledger extract, it does not mean that Opposite party Bank has fraudulently mis-used the amount. There is no negligent act and also no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite party Bank. Domestic enquiry is still pending before the Enquiry Officer and hence the report submitted by the Opposite party Bank is not a conclusive proof. The complainant can approach the Civil Court and can have his remedy. The pass book produced finds a seal, but there is no signature of the bank employees in and around the seal. There is no merit in the complaint and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.


    4. During trial, the complainant is examined and has produced Ex.C.1 to C.13. The Opposite party is examined and Ex.R.1 document is produced.


    5. We have heard both sides.


    6. Now the points that arise for our considerations are:- 1. Whether the complainant proves that the Opposite party Bank Employees have failed to mention the transaction entered in the pass book to the ledger of the Bank and have mis-appropriated the amount and there is difference of Rs.87,585/-? 2. Whether the complaint is not maintainable? 3. Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief sought for?


    7. Our findings and reasons are as here under:-


    8. It is an admitted fact that the complainant is a Consumer having S.B. A/c No.7307 from 07.12.2001. Naturally, the pass book must have been issued and it is an admitted fact that complainant has made transaction.

    9. According to the complainant, the transaction made by him are entered in the pass book Ex.C.1, but some of the transactions are not mentioned in the ledger maintained by the Bank and there is difference of Rs.87,585/- and Opposite party Bank Officials have mis-appropriated the amount, but the Opposite party contended that the pass book produced by the complainant does not bear the signature of the Secretary or the Officer inside the seal and some entries in the pass book have been concocted and the pass book has been fabricated in collusion with the suspended employees of the Bank.


    10. It is contended by the complainant that the Opposite party himself has filed the complaint against its employees as per Ex.C.7 about the mis-appropriation of the amount of the customers and committed breach of trust and in that complaint, the difference of amount with regard to the complainant at item No.11 is mentioned and that report is based on the verification of the documents.


    11. Though, it is contended by the Opposite party that mere filing of the complaint against these staff, is not a proof of the mis-appropriation amount by the staff of the bank and department enquiry is pending and hence no liability can be fixed on the Opposite party.


    12. The contention that the pass book of the complainant has been fabricated in collusion with the suspended employees of the bank and hence, the entries in the pass book are not supposed to find a place in the ledger extract and there is no signature of the Bank Officer in side the seal in Ex.C.1, but this pass book issued on 06.12.2006 and it is a old pass book and it is not a new pass book and it cannot be said that in collusion with the suspended employees the pass book is fabricated. This pass book contains the old photo with seal of the Bank and the pass book is also a old pass book and not a new pass book. It cannot be accepted at all that Ex.C.1 pass book is not issued by the Opposite party Bank. The contention is that the entries have been manipulated with the employees of the bank, after they were suspended, but there is no evidence when the employees against whom the complaint is filed are suspended. Before the police when the complaint was lodged, it is clearly stated that they have obtained already audit report with regard to the mis-appropriation of the amount by the employees and on that basis, a complaint is filed against the Bank employees. So on the basis of the record available in the Opposite party Bank, they have come to the conclusion that these 4 employees have cheated the customers and committed breach of trust and mis-appropriated the amounts of the customers. The Opposite party has admitted in cross-examination that it appears that Ex.C.1 has been issued by the Opposite party Bank and the entries made in the Ex.C.1 are that of Jayaram and Balaraj who were attenders. He has admitted that the contents in the complaint before the police are true and before lodging the complaint, the documents of the Bank were examined and the difference of amount in the pass book of the complainant to that of ledger is admitted. It is admitted that in the ledger there is deposit of Rs.4,50,000/- to the account of the complainant on 24.11.2007, but who has deposited is not mentioned but entry is not made in the pass book Ex.C.1 at all. If we peruse the entries in the pass book, they are maintained as if they are properly written, but they are contrary to the entries made in the ledger Ex.R.1. It cannot be accepted that in collusion with the suspended employees the entries in the pass book are fabricated. Even for the shake of arguments, the pencil entries from 05.02.2008 up to 19.06.2008 is written, but the transaction in the pass book is correctly stated though mentioned in the pencil with regard to balance amount. As per the entries in the pass book as on 11.01.2008 the balance is shown as Rs.4,64,923/-. But in the ledger Ex.R.1 (Ex.C.2) as on 11.01.2008 the balance is shown as Rs.3,76,934/-. So, the difference comes to Rs.87,989/-. Naturally, the customer believes the entries made in the pass book until he noticed the difference. Admittedly, the entries are made by the employees of the Bank, when it is admitted that it is not known how Rs.4,50,000/- is deposited on 24.11.2007 as per the ledger Ex.R.1, we does not find a place in the pass book Ex.C.1, if the complainant wanted to mis-use the same, he would have got entered this amount in his pass book, but he believed the entries made in his pass book only, but the Opposite party Officials have made different entries in the ledger contrary to the entries in the pass book. We find that though the amount is deposited as per the pass book on one day, the entry is shown on the next date in the ledger. Further, in the ledger on 31.03.2008 there is credit of interest of Rs.663/-, but in the pass book that entry is made after the entries of 27.06.2008. So writing different account in the ledger, the Opposite party Bank Officials have managed to write the correct transaction made by the complainant in the pass book, so that he cannot suspect any entries and in that manner they have mis-appropriated the amount in different way and caused difference of Rs.87,989/-. There is no reason to suspect the entries made in the pass book and it is supported by the report of the Opposite party submitted to the police based on the audit report and hence Opposite party has committed deficiency in service by not performing duty of controlling the staff and caused loss to the complainant and for the mis-use of the amount from the account of the complainant by the staff of the Opposite party Bank, the Opposite party is vicariously liable to make good the loss as it is open to the Opposite party to recover the amount from this staff according to the law.


    13. It is contended that the complainant has to approach the Civil Court for the remedy and the complaint is not maintainable, but the complainant is a Consumer and he need not go to Civil Court and he can select one of the legal remedies provided in the Civil Court or Consumer Forum and hence, the complaint is maintainable.



    14. The complainant has sought for Rs.87,585/- with compensation of Rs.2,50,000/-. As per the finding above, we find the difference of Rs.87,989/-. Though the complainant has sought for compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- there are no sufficient grounds to claim this exhogerated compensation. But, it is just to award interest for the amount payable by the Opposite party.


    15. In the result, we proceed to pass the following order; ORDER Complaint is allowed, directing Opposite party to pay Rs.87,585/- with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of complaint till realisation with cost of Rs.2,000/-. (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum this the 30th day of March 2009). (PRESIDENT) (MEMBER) (MEMBER)




    ......................
    Smt.A.P.Mahadevamma

    ......................
    Sri.M.N.Manohara

    ......................
    Sri.Siddegowda
    Regards,
    Admin,

    ** PMs asking me for support will be deleted unless I've asked you to PM me with additional details **

  2. #2
    admin is offline Administrator
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    3,015

    Default

    ORDER



    BEFORE THE MANDYA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANDYA PRESENT: 1. SIDDEGOWDA, B.Sc., LLB., President, 2. M.N.MANOHARA, B.A., LLB., Member, 3. A.P.MAHADEVAMMA, B.Sc., LLB., Member,

    ORDER

    Complaint No.MDF/C.C.No.136/2008 Order dated this the 25th day of March 2009


    COMPLAINANT/S Sri.K.Puttaraju S/o Late Kempegowda, R/o Harishchandra Circle, Halahalli Road, Mandya. (By Sri.M.J.Jain., Advocate) -


    Vs- OPPOSITE PARTY/S The Mandya City Co-operative Bank Ltd., V.V.Road, Mandya, Rep. by its Branch Manager/Secretary. (By Sri.T.Lokesh., Advocate)


    Date of complaint 19.12.2008 Date of service of notice to Opposite party 29.12.2008 Date of order 25.03.2009 Total Period 2 Months 26 Days Result The complaint is allowed, directing the Opposite party to pay Rs.1,39,000/- with interest at 9% p.a. from 28.11.2007 till realization with cost of Rs.2,000/- to the complainant. Sri.Siddegowda, President



    1. This complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 against the Opposite party claiming Rs.1,39,000/- with interest and compensation of Rs.50,000/-, alleging the difference of amount in his account due to the deficiency in service by the Opposite party.


    2. The case of the complainant is that he is holder of S.B. A/c No.144 in the Opposite party Bank from last 10 years and used to transact having good faith. In January 2008, the complainant noticed the difference of Rs.1,39,000/- in his account, then immediately approached the Opposite party Bank Officials and after verifying the records, the Opposite party Officials conceded the difference of Rs.1,39,000/- in his account and the Opposite party agreed to pay the difference amount, since the bank staff have committed a illegality and sought for time. The complainant waited for sometime, but the Opposite party dragged on the matter. In that connection, the complainant has given petition to the Opposite party and due to their negligence, the complainant got issued legal notice dated 22.10.2008, for which no reply was sent. Therefore, the Opposite party has sustained loss of Rs.1,39,000/- in his account and if he had invested the amount in his business he would have earned more profit. The Opposite party has committed deficiency in service and hence liable to refund Rs.1,39,000/- with interest and compensation of Rs.50,000/-.



    3. The Opposite party has filed version contesting the complaint. Admitting that the complainant is the holder of S.B. A/c No.144, the other allegations are denied by the Opposite party. Admitting the legal notice dated 22.10.2008, it is pleaded that reply has been sent on 18.12.2008. The loss of income if the difference amount had been utilized for business is false. The complainant has not come with clean hands. The Opposite party has not committed any deficiency in service. Therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed with costs.



    4. During trial, the complainant is examined and he has produced Ex.C.1 to C.7 documents. Opposite party is examined and Ex.R.1 document is produced.


    5. We have heard both sides.


    6. Now the points that arise for our considerations are:- 1. Whether it is proved that there is difference of Rs.1,39,000/- from his pass book entry to that of ledger entry? 2. Whether the Opposite party has committed deficiency in service? 3. Whether the complainant is entitled to refund of Rs.1,39,000/- with interest and compensation?



    7. Our findings and reasons are as here under:-


    8. The undisputed facts are that the complainant is the customer of the Opposite party Bank since last 10 years having S.B. A/c No.144. It is an admitted fact that the complainant has submitted the letter Ex.C.2 dated 14.01.2008 and Ex.C.1 dated 27.08.2008 to the Opposite party Bank. It is the case and evidence of the complainant that in January 2008 he came to know the difference of Rs.1,39,000/- in his S.B. Account, on the basis of the pass book and documents. Then he orally requested and since the Opposite party prolonged, he gave the petition Ex.C.2 on 14.01.2008. In this petition, it is clearly stated there is difference of Rs.1,39,000/- from the entry in the pass book to that of the ledger account and even the original pass book was retained for making entry, but was not returned and on pressure, the present pass book i.e., Ex.c.5 was issued. The Opposite party has admitted that prima-facie Ex.C.5 pass book has been issued from the Bank.
    It is also admitted that the entries in this pass book are made by the staff of the Opposite party Bank. The Opposite party has produced Ex.R.1 the copy of the S.B. Account of the complainant from the ledger and on perusal of the pass book entries and Ex.R.1, they do not tally at all. Though the complainant has not produced the reply letter dated 19.08.2008, but it is pleaded in the letter Ex.C.1 that the complainant had furnished the available documents along with earlier petition, but without examining the documents, the reply letter has been sent revealing the dereliction of duty.



    9. It is natural that a customer will not maintain all the challans for having deposited the amount either by cash or through collection of cheque and mostly to the extent of 95% customers depend upon the entries made in the pass book, because the bank officials will make entries to the pass book on the basis of the ledger book and transaction. But peculiarly in the present case, the entries made in his account extract Ex.R.1 do not tally with the entries made in the pass book Ex.C.5. It is not the case of the Opposite party that in collusion with the staff of the Opposite party Bank, the complainant had got entered the entries in his pass book though not available in his account. No complaint is filed that the complainant had created entries in the pass book and no action is taken at all. When the Opposite party has admitted the entries are made by the staff of Opposite party Bank, it is for the Opposite party to give explanation as to how the bank officials has made entries in Ex.C.5 pass book contrary to entries in the ledger. The customer will suspect the entries in the pass book when he comes to know that there is no such fund in his account in the bank. In fact, in Ex.C.2 the complainant has pleaded that on 08.12.2007 when he enquired Smt.Mangala, the staff informed there is no balance of Rs.1,55,379/-, but there is Rs.16,379/-. Since as per the pass book as on 28.11.2007 there was balance of Rs.1,55,379/-, there is difference of Rs.1,39,000/- and he suspected that the entries of collection of cheques are not made and he has not drawn the amounts in some cheques as mentioned in the ledger extract.
    The Opposite party instead of verifying the records available with Opposite party, sent a letter dated 18.12.2008 asking the complainant to produce the documents though he had furnished the copy of the pass book, we cannot expect the production of any other documents other than the pass book by a customer, because customer will not maintain the challans for having deposited cash or by cheque and only believes the entries made in the pass book maintained by the bank.
    If we peruse Ex.C.5 pass book as on 28.11.2007 the balance was Rs.1,55,379/-, but in Ex.R.1 the account extract of the bank, the balance is shown as Rs.16,379/-. It is clear from the documents Ex.C.6 & C.3 that the Opposite party has examined the complaints of customers with the documents available in the bank and submitted report that 4 bank officials have mis-appropriated Rs.34,90,000/- by issuing new pass book without returning the old pass book and the staff has deposited the amount to an account when the customer came to draw the amount to suppress the fact of difference in the bank account and the pass book and also destroying the challans by issuing counter challans to customers and making entries in the pass book, but not making entries in the ledger. In Ex.C.6 it is clearly stated that on the basis of available material, the said report has been submitted to take action against those four officials. Further in the report annexed to the Ex.C.6, it is stated in respect of the complainant that as per the pass book as on 08.12.2007, the amount is Rs.1,55,504/-, but as per ledger it is Rs.16,504/- and there is balance of Rs.1,39,000/-. This report Ex.C.6 is prepared after the resolution of the Board of the Bank on 31.01.2008. But the complainant had given petition on 14.01.2008 itself about the difference of Rs.1,39,000/- in his S.B. A/c to that of his pass book entries. Ex.C.3 is the chart prepared by the Opposite party giving the details of customers and the difference of amount between the pass book entry and ledger entry and it includes the complainants name also. Admittedly, the Opposite party has filed case before the Joint Director of Co-operative Societies, Bangalore against his 4 officials for recovery of mis-appropriation amount of Rs.34,90,000/- and obtained attachment before judgement. Further, reply to legal notice is sent only after receipt of notice of complaints which shows the negligence of Opposite party. Under these circumstances, it is established by the complainant that there is difference of Rs.1,39,000/- in his S.B. A/c maintained in the bank to that of entries made in the pass book Ex.C.5 issued by the Opposite party Bank and these fraudulent entries are done by the staff of the Opposite party Bank in ledger with intention of mis-appropriation and there is negligence on the part of Opposite party Bank in the regular duties performed by its employees for which the Opposite party Bank is vicariously liable and hence, the Opposite party has committed deficiency in service as held by the decision reported in I (2007) CPJ 221 by our Hon’ble National Commission in the case of Allahabad Bank –Vs- Shiv Swarup Shrivastav. 10. The complainant has sought for refund of Rs.1,39,000/- being the difference amount and also interest and compensation of Rs.50,000/-. The complainant has sought for compensation on the ground that if he had invested that amount in his business he would have earned more profit and he was put to mental agony. Since, the complainant has also sought for interest, it is reasonable to award interest only. So, the complainant is entitled difference amount of Rs.1,39,000/- with interest at 9% p.a. from 28.11.2007 from the Opposite party. 11. In the result, we proceed to pass the following order; ORDER The complaint is allowed, directing the Opposite party to pay Rs.1,39,000/- with interest at 9% p.a. from 28.11.2007 till realization with cost of Rs.2,000/- to the complainant.



    Regards,
    Admin,

    ** PMs asking me for support will be deleted unless I've asked you to PM me with additional details **

  3. #3
    admin is offline Administrator
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    3,015

    Default Mandya City Co-operative Bank Ltd

    ORDER

    BEFORE THE MANDYA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANDYA PRESENT: 1. SIDDEGOWDA, B.Sc., LLB., President, 2. M.N.MANOHARA, B.A., LLB., Member, 3. A.P.MAHADEVAMMA, B.Sc., LLB., Member, ORDER Complaint No.MDF/C.C.No.112/2008 Order dated this the 23rd day of April 2009 COMPLAINANT/S Smt.C.Prema W/o Channaiah, No.773, Guthal Colony, Mandya. (By Sri.Yogananda., Advocate) -Vs- OPPOSITE PARTY/S The Manager, Mandya City Co-operative Bank Ltd., V.V.Road, Mandya. (By Sri.T.Lokesh., Advocate) Date of complaint 31.10.2008 Date of service of notice to Opposite party 18.11.2008 Date of order 23.04.2009 Total Period 5 Months 5 Days Result The complaint is partly allowed, directing Opposite party to pay Rs.8,075/- with interest at 9% p.a. from 30.08.2007 till payment with cost of Rs.500/- to the complainant. Sri.Siddegowda, President

    1. This complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 against the Opposite party claiming Rs.8,075/- with interest and compensation of Rs.80,000/- and cost of Rs.10,000/-.

    2. The case of the complainant is that she is the account holder in S.B. A/c No.6883 in the Opposite party Bank. On 30.08.2007, the complainant has deposited D.D. No.310322 of ING Vysya Bank for Rs.8,075/- in the Opposite party Bank and they have issued the challan and also entered in the pass book, but when the complainant went to draw the D.D. amount, it was informed that there is only Rs.264/- in her account. Therefore, the complainant was shocked and though the pass book was shown, the Opposite party refused to pay the amount. Then, the complainant gave a petition dated 20.05.2008, there was no reply. Again on 26.08.2008 she gave another petition, but they have shown negligence. The Opposite party has committed deficiency in service by not crediting the D.D. amount of Rs.8.075/- to her account.


    3. The Opposite party has filed version admitting that the complainant is a customer having the account. It is denied that on 30.08.2007 she has presented a D.D. drawn on ING Vysya Bank for a sum of Rs.8,075/- which bears D.D. No.310322 and the bank has received the D.D. and entered in the pass book and issued the receipt. It is true that when the complainant approached the Opposite party Bank for payment, the bank authorities have informed that a sum of Rs.264/- is the outstanding balance in her account. In fact, the complainant at first instance she has approached the bank as if she has deposited a sum of Rs.8,075/- by cash on 30.03.2007. The complainant is not so specific with respect to her claim made in the complaint. It is true that on 25.05.2008 the complainant filed an application to the Opposite party Bank for which a suitable reply is given on 19.08.2008. It is false that the complainant has filed second application on 26.08.2008. Since, the complainant has not presented the D.D. worth of Rs.8,075/- to the Opposite party Bank, it has not committed deficiency in service. The complainant, by creating and fabricating the pass book and also challan, has filed a false complaint. Therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed with costs.


    4. During trial, the complainant is examined and she has produced Ex.C.1 to C.10. The Opposite party is examined and he has produced Ex.R.1 to R.3.

    5. We have heard both sides.


    6. Now the points that arise for our considerations are:- 1. Whether the complainant proves that she has deposited D.D. amount of Rs.8,075/- to Opposite party Bank for collection? 2. Whether the Opposite party has committed deficiency in service in not paying the amount of D.D.? 3. Whether the complainant is entitled to the D.D. amount with interest and compensation?

    7. Our findings and reasons are as here under:-


    8. The undisputed facts are that the complainant is having S.B. A/c bearing No.6883 in Opposite party Bank. According to the complainant, on 30.08.2007 she deposited a D.D. of Rs.8,075/- of ING Vysya Bank and Opposite party issued the challan and entered in the pass book. The Opposite party has denied the same. The complainant has produced the pass book Ex.C.1 and the counter challan Ex.C.2. She has also produced the Xerox copy of the D.D. of Citi Bank payable at ING Vysya Bank, Mandya For a sum of Rs.8,075/- in favour of the complainant and this D.D. is dated 13.08.2007. The Opposite party has taken contention that creating the pass book and challan, false complaint is filed. But, if we consider all the challans, it cannot be acceptable at all that the complainant is in a position to create the pass book and the challan, if that is the situation why complaint is not filed by the Opposite party Bank against the complainant for creating this pass book and the challan and also creation of the seal of the bank. Merely because, the Officer who issued the pass book has not put signature, but the pass book bears the photo of the complainant with seal and address of the complainant with another seal and she had made transaction from March 2006. Of course, as per Ex.C.4 (Ex.R.3) the complainant has stated that she has deposited cash of Rs.8,075/-, but according to the complainant, she is a illiterate lady and if we see her signature in Ex.R.3 and handwriting, it clearly reveals that she is illiterate lady knowing only put signature and this letter is dated 20.05.2008. Then, the Opposite party has issued the letter Ex.C.5 dated 19.08.2008 to produce the details of the cheque for having deposited Rs.8,075/- on 25.08.2008. According to the complainant, she approached the Opposite party Bank and shown the documents, but they did not oblige to answer and so she gave petition dated 26.08.2008. The Opposite party has gone to the extent of denying the letter Ex.C.6, though the Opposite party Bank has received by acknowledging the same on 26.08.2008. There is no answer for this at all, there is no explanation as to why no reply was sent to this letter. Therefore, she has lodged this complaint. The complainant has produced Ex.C.8 copy of the account opening form of the Mallige Multipurpose Co-operative Society Ltd., No.70, Near Water Tank, Jeevan Bhima Nagar, Bangalore – 75 in Bank of Baroda, Mandya Branch and this document contains letter of that society, letter of indemnity and bylaws. The complainant has also produced Ex.C.10 the copy of the letter of the said Mallige Multipurpose Co-operative Society dated 29.08.2007 which contains of the name, cheque number, name of the drawn bank and amount with date, totally 12 cheques through this letter which contains the cheque of the complainant was presented to the Bank of Baroda, Mandya Branch, through challan Ex.C.9 mentioning the total amount of Rs.3,41,673/-. In the presence of these documents and also Ex.C.2 counter challan having seal of the Opposite party Bank, it cannot be accepted at all, that the complainant is a member of that Mallige Multipurpose Co-operative Society, Bangalore and presented the cheque at Bangalore instead of Opposite party Bank which is very near. Even though, the Opposite party has produced the daily transaction sheet dated 30.08.2007 as per Ex.R.1 and it does not find the mention of D.D. amount or cheque, but it is not at all signed by the officers with seal and name only one person has put signature. According to the evidence of Opposite party the daily transaction will be signed by the concerned Accountant and Chief Officer of the Bank and also put seal, but we do not find such things in transaction sheet at all.
    Therefore, it is not in accordance with Bankers Evidence Act and therefore those entries cannot be belied at all. Even Ex.R.2, the account extract of the complainant produced by the Opposite party cannot be believed, because the complainant has produced the challan for having deposited Rs.50,000/- on 17.10.2006 which finds a place in the pass book as per Ex.C.21, but it does not find a place in account extract Ex.R.2 at all. As per the pass book, she has deposited Rs.50,000/- on 17.10.2006 and she has withdrawn Rs.35,000/- on 21.10.2007, for having deposited Rs.50,000/- she has produced the challan which cannot be disputed at all and these challans are bearing the seal and signature of the Opposite party Bank. Though the complainant has made 6 transactions as per Ex.C.1, we find only 2 transactions in the year 2006 as per Ex.R.2 account extract. It clearly reveals that all is not well and not properly maintained the account of the customer by Opposite party Bank at all. There is no reason to suspect the challans, pass book and other documents produced by the complainant and the documents Ex.R.1 and R.2 produced by the Opposite party cannot be believed at all. Therefore, the complainant has clearly established that she has deposited Paylink Check for Rs.8,075/- as per Ex.C.3, which it is account payee only not negotiable cheque to Opposite party Bank and the cheque is misused by the Officials of Opposite party Bank and presented through Mallige Multipurpose Co-operative Society to which the complainant is not a member at all and they have misused the amount, though it is a account payee cheque and not negotiable cheque.
    Though, the Opposite party Bank has issued the challan Ex.C.2 and entered in the pass book about the cheque amount and even Opposite party has failed to reply to the letter Ex.C.6 about the amount. Though the complainant showed the challan and pass book and therefore an adverse inference should be drawn in view of the improper documents maintained by the Opposite party. This Forum has received so many complaints about irregular accounts maintained by the Opposite party Bank and not crediting the amount deposited and an improper withdrawal by forging the signature of the customers. The refusal of the amount by the Opposite party and not crediting the cheque amount to the S.B. A/c of the complainant by Opposite party Bank is a utter gross negligence and cheating all the customer and Opposite party has committed deficiency in service. 9. The complainant has sought for the cheque amount with interest and also compensation and costs. The complainant is not entitled to the compensation as sought for, but she is entitled to the interest on the cheque amount. 10. In the result, we proceed to pass the following order; ORDER The complaint is partly allowed, directing Opposite party to pay Rs.8,075/- with interest at 9% p.a. from 30.08.2007 till payment with cost of Rs.500/- to the complainant.

    Regards,
    Admin,

    ** PMs asking me for support will be deleted unless I've asked you to PM me with additional details **

+ Submit Your Complaint

Similar Threads

  1. Malleswaram Co-Operative Bank
    By admin in forum Judgments
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 09-27-2013, 11:08 AM
  2. Rajajinagar Co-operative Bank
    By admin in forum Banking
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-06-2009, 11:03 PM
  3. District Co-operative Bank Ltd
    By admin in forum Banking
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-06-2009, 06:01 PM
  4. Goa State Co-operative Bank
    By admin in forum Banking
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-04-2009, 11:37 AM
  5. City Bank
    By Tanu in forum Judgments
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-02-2009, 12:02 AM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •