BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT PUDUCHERRY
THURSDAY, the 25th day of May, 2017
FIRST APPPEAL No. 6/2017
1. The Manager,
Indian Bank (Zonal Office),
E.C.R. Road, Puducherry.
2. The Branch Manager,
Indian Bank , Koodapakkam Branch,
Koodapakkam, Puducherry.
…………. Appellants
Vs.
P. Selvendiran, S/o Pazhani,
No.5, Middle Street (East),
Pillaiyarkuppam, Villianur Commune,
Puducherry.
…………. Respondent
(On appeal against the order passed in C.C..No.20/2016, dt.16.12.2016 by District Forum, Puducherry)
C.C.No.20/2016
P. Selvendiran, S/o Pazhani,
No.5, Middle Street (East),
Pillaiyarkuppam, Villianur Commune,
Puducherry.
…………. Complainant
Vs.
1. The Manager,
Indian Bank (Zonal Office),
E.C.R. Road, Puducherry.
2. The Branch Manager,
Indian Bank , Koodapakkam Branch,
Koodapakkam, Puducherry.
…………. Opposite Parties
BEFORE:
HON’BLE THIRU JUSTICE K.VENKATARAMAN,
PRESIDENT
THIRU. S.TIROUGNANASSAMBANDANE,
MEMBER
FOR THE APPELLANTS:
Tvl.S.P.Vassudevan & K.Veeraselvam,
Advocates, Puducherry
FOR THE RESPONDENT:
Party-inPerson
O R D E R
(By Hon'ble Justice President)
This appeal is directed against the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Puducherry, dated 16.12.2016 made in C.C.20/2016.
2. The opposite parties before the District Forum are the appellants in this Appeal and the complainant thereon is the respondent herein.
3. The parties are referred in the same position as they have been referred in the District Forum.
3. The case of the complainant before the District Forum was that he was having Savings Bank Account with 2nd opposite party and he was also issued with ATM card. While entering transactions in the pass book, a sum of Rs.10,000/- had been shown as debited in the statement of account, which he has not withdrawn. He informed the same to the Manager, who took note of it and said that he will take suitable action within two weeks, but he has not done anything. Therefore, the complainant laid complaint before the District Forum.
4. Before the District Forum, the opposite parties were remained absent and they were set exparte.
5. On behalf of the complainant, he has been examined as CW1 and through him documents have been marked as Exs.C1 to C5.
6. The District framed the following three points for determination
1. Whether the complainant is a consumer?
2. Whether the O.P.s attributed any deficiency in service and unfair trade
practice?
3. To what relief the complainant is entitled for?
7. On the first point, the District Forum found that the complainant is a consumer. On the second point, the District Forum found that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and on the third point, the District Forum found that the opposite parties have to re-credit the amount of Rs.10,000/- in the account of the complainant; to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service and for negligent act of the opposite parties and a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards as costs.
8. As already stated, challenging the said order the present appeal is filed.
9. It is an admitted fact that the opposite parties did not appear before the District Forum despite receipt of notice and hence they were set exparte. Though the opposite parties are expected to spell out the reasons for their non-appearance before the District Forum, unfortunately, it has failed to do so. Before this Commission, the opposite parties like to rely upon certain documents to establish their case that a sum of Rs.10,000/- was withdrawn by the complainant and not it is withdrawn by any third party. The said document could be considered only after giving opportunity to the complainant to cross-examine the witness if at all examined by the bank. Therefore, we are of the view that unless if the matter is remitted back to the District Forum by giving an opportunity to the opposite parties to file reply version and also examine their witness and produce documents, the truth will not come out.
10. The complainant is present before this Commission and he was apprised about the said facts. It has also been made clear that the matter will be remitted back to the District Forum and to decide the matter afresh on payment of cost of Rs 2000/- to him for which he has accepted. Even otherwise on merits of the matter, we are of the view that the matter requires reconsideration by the District Forum after it is remitted to the District Forum. Therefore, the order passed by the District Forum in C.C.20/2016, dated 16.12.2016 is set aside and the matter is remitted to the District Forum to decide the matter afresh after giving opportunities to the opposite parties to file reply version and also permitting both the parties to lead evidence and produce documents.
11. Thus, the appeal is allowed and the matter is remitted to the District forum to decide the matter afresh. Since the matter was pending for more than a year, it is just and reasonable to direct the District Forum to dispose of the same within four months from the date of receipt of this order. The Registry is directed to send a copy of this order within ten days from this date. The Appellants/opposite parties are directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two-Thousand only) as costs to the respondent/ complainant within ten days from this date. Only on the payment of cost, the District Forum has to take up the matter. The mandatory deposit made at the time of filing the appeal, is ordered to be returned to the appellants/Opposite Parties.
Dated this the 25th day of May, 2017
(Justice. K.VENKATARAMAN)
PRESIDENT
(S.TIROUGNANASSAMBANDANE)
MEMBER
