Date of filing:  09.11.2017

Date of Disposal: 18.05.2023

 BEFORE THE III ADDITIONAL BANGALORE URBAN

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,     BENGALURU – 560 027.

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF MAY, 2023

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.2929/2017

PRESENT:

SRI.RAJU K.S,

SMT.REKHA SAYANNAVAR,:MEMBER                                         

Chickavenkateshaiah M.A., B.L.,

No.53, U.A.S. Layout,

Sanjaynagar, RMV II Stage,

Since dead, by his LRs:

1) C.V. Nanda Kumar,

S/o. Late Chickavenkateshaiah,

Aged About 58 years,

Residing at No.155, AECS Layout,

Sanjaynagar, Bangalore-560094.

2) C.V. Vijaya Kumar,

S/o. Late Chickavenkateshaiah,

Aged About 48 years,

3) C.V.Bhagya,

D/o. Late Chickavenkateshaiah,

Aged About 43 years,

4) C.V.Roopavathi,

D/o. Late Chickavenkateshaiah,

Aged About 39 years,

LRs 2 to 4 are residing at:

No.53, U.A.S. Layout, Sanjaynagar,

(Rep by Sri. Ram Bhat & Sreepada, Advocate)

- V/s -

1) The Manager,

Canara Bank,

126/A, 80 feet Road,

Sanjaynagar Branch,

RMV II Stage, Bangalore-560094.

2) Chief Manager,

Vijaya bank (New Bank of Baroda),

Sanjaynagar Branch,

RMV II Stage, Bangalore-560094.

(Rep. by Sri.Sandeep S. Shahapur, Advocate) 

//JUDGEMENT//

BY SRI. SHIVARAMA K, PRESIDENT

01.    The complainant has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking for a direction to the opposite party No.1 to credit a sum of Rs.9,00,000/- with interest to the SB account of the complainant and such other relief as this Commission deems fit in the circumstances of the case.

02.    The complaint is filed on 09.11.2017 and the complainant has died on 29.07.2020.  Thereafter his children were brought on record as his LRs by the order of this Commission dated: 12.11.2020.

03.    It is not in dispute that, deceased complainant had an SB account at opposite party No.1-Bank.  Further it is not in dispute that, the complainant’s son Sri. C.V. Nanda Kumar also had an SB account at opposite party No.2-Bank.  It is also not in dispute that, C.V. Nanda Kumar had presented a cheque dated: 03.02.2017 for a sum of Rs.9,00,000/- drawn on State Bank Of Mysore, Mahalakshmi Layout Branch, Bangalore, before the opposite party No.2.  Further it is not in dispute that, an amount of Rs.9,00,000/- has been credited by the Bank to the account of C.V. Nanda Kumar.  Further it is not in dispute that, C.V. Nanda Kumar got transferred the said amount of Rs.9,00,000/- through RTGS to the account of his father maintained at opposite party No.1-Bank.  It is not in dispute that, later on opposite party No.1 has reversed the said amount to opposite party No.2-Bank at the request of opposite party No.2-Bank.  Further it is not in dispute that, opposite party No.2 had shown debit entry for the said amount of Rs.9,00,000/- in the account of C.V. Nanda Kumar.  Further it is not in dispute that, the deceased complainant had questioned the said act of the opposite party No.1-Bank before Ombudsmen and on 14.07.2017 the complainant received a reply from the Ombudsmen directing him to approach the Court of Law. 

04.    It is the further case of the complainant that, it is the duty of the Bank to take the consent of the account holder before withdrawing the amount.  Further opposite party No.1 had illegally withdrew the amount without the consent of the account holder.  Hence opposite party No.1 has committed fraud, thereby the complaint came to be filed.

05.    It is the further case of the opposite party No.1-Bank that, opposite party No.1 had received the amount of Rs.9,00,000/- from opposite party No.2 through RTGS on 16.02.2017 and the said amount was said to have been sent by C.V. Nanda Kumar.  Since the account number of the beneficiary and the name of the account holder were not matching with each other, it had kept on hold the said amount.  Further by thinking that, the said amount was belonged to the account of the deceased complainant opposite party No.1 had credited the said inward RTGS amount to his account and since the deceased complainant was not available for contact, the said amount was kept on hold.  Further subsequently on 21.02.2017 opposite party No.2 had represented that, there was no balance in the account of Nanda Kumar C.V. and the said amount was sent by RTGS by mistake and sought to reverse the said RTGS amount.  Accordingly the said amount was reversed.  Further since the cheque was pre-dated as 03.02.1917 the service branch of the clearing Bank of opposite party No.2 has returned the cheque, but by oversight the amount of the cheque was credited to the savings bank account of C.V. Nanda Kumar on 15.02.2017 by opposite party No.2.  Further later on the said cheque was returned with a reason that, it was a stale cheque by the service branch of Vijaya Bank.  Hence there is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party No.1-Bank.

06.    It is the further case of opposite party No.2 that, due to oversight the said stale cheque was sent to service branch for clearance and later on the said cheque was returned without honouring.  Subsequently the amount sent to opposite party No.1-Bank to the account of deceased complainant on the request of C.V. Nanda Kumar by way of RTGS was withdrawn on the request of opposite party No.2-Bank and it was reversed by opposite party No.1-Bank.  Hence there is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party No.2.

07.    To prove the case, the deceased complainant’s son (PW-1) has filed affidavits dated: 23.02.2018 and dated: 29.01.2021 in the form of his evidence in chief and got marked EX.P.1 to EX.P.15 documents.  One Praveen Kumar, working Manager of opposite party No.1 (RW.1) has filed affidavit in the form of his evidence in chief and got marked Ex.R.1 to EX.R.6 documents.  One J. Murali Mohan, the Assistant Manager of opposite party No.2 (RW-2) has filed affidavit in the form of his evidence in chief and one Sri. Sanjay Kumar Arya Branch Manager in opposite party No.2 (RW-3) has also filed affidavit in the form of his evidence in chief and got marked Ex.R.7 to EX.R.19 documents.

08.    Counsels for the respective parties have filed their written arguments.

09.    Heard the counsels for the respective parties.

10.    The points that would arise for consideration are as under:-

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

  (2) Whether the complainants are entitle for the relief sought ?

      (3) To what order ?

11.    Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:-

POINT NO.1:-  In negative

POINT NO.2:-  In negative

POINT NO.3:-  As per the final order

 for the following:

REASONS

12.    POINT NO.1:-  PW-1 and RW.1 to 3 have reiterated the fact stated in their respective pleadings, in the affidavits filed in the form of their evidence in chief. 

13.    It is the contention of the learned counsel for the complainant that, the transaction with regard to the credit of Rs.9,00,000/- to the account of the deceased complainant was made and has been entered in the pass-book of the deceased complainant on 16.02.2017 itself.  Hence the transaction was a complete one and final.  Further opposite party No.1 transferred and withdrew or reverse the said amount by suomoto and the same is against the principles of natural justice.  It is the contention of the learned counsel for the opposite parties that, by oversight opposite party No.2 had credited the amount of Rs.9,00,000/- to the account of C.V. Nandakumar maintained at opposite party No.2-Bank.  Further immediately C.V. Nandakumar had got transferred the said amount of Rs.9,00,000/- by way of RTGS to the account of his father maintained at opposite party No.1-Bank.

14.    Further since the service branch of opposite party No.2-Bank had dishonoured the cheque presented by C.V. Nandakumar drawn at State Bank of Mysore, Mahalakshmi Layout Branch, Bangalore, on the ground that, the cheque was dated: 03.02.1917.  There is no dispute that the cheque was dated: 03.02.1917.  Since the said cheque was staled, the service branch of opposite party No.2 was right in not honouring the cheque.  Therefore the complainant shall not take advantage of the mistake of the Bank and it amounts to having a wrongful gain and unjust enrichment which is opposed to the provisions of the Indian Contract Act.

15.    It is not the case of the LRs of the deceased complainant that, the cheque issued by one K.C. Ravindranath drawn at State Bank of Mysore, Mahalakshmi Layout, Bangalore, in favour of C.V. Nandakumar for Rs.9,00,000/- dated: 15.02.1917 has been honoured and the said sum amount has been debited to the account of K.C. Ravindranath.  Further the complainants did not produce the account statement of the account of K.C. Ravindranath maintained at State Bank Of Mysore to say that, the said amount of Rs.9,00,000/- has been debited to his account.  Further the complainants could have secure the account statement from State Bank of Mysore, Mahalakshmi Layout Branch, Bangalore, to say that, the said amount has been debited.  No such effort has been made.  Hence it cannot be inferred that, the cheque amount issued by K.C. Ravindaranath has been debited from his account and opposite party No.2 –Bank has with hold the said amount by wrongly debiting the said amount to the account of C.V. Nandakumar.  The opposite party No.2 - Bank has also produced attested copy of the cheque dated: 03.02.1917 vide EX.R.7, statement of account of C.V. Nanda Kumar vide EX.R.8, Two credit vouchers and two debit vouchers vide EX.R.12 to EX.R.15, letter of request by opposite party No.2 to opposite party No.1 dated: 13.03.2017 vide EX.R.16 seeking for reversal of the subject amount, carbon copy of cheque return memo dated: 09.03.2017 vide EX.R.18.  In which it is stated that, the cheque was out-of-date.  The above said documents are sufficient to prove beyond any doubt that, the cheque was out-dated and opposite party No.2 – Bank has wrongly gave clearance of the cheque without getting any clearance from the clearance office of opposite party No.2 and credited the amount to the account of C.V. Nandakumar.  No doubt without the consent of the account holder any amount cannot be debited by the Bank to the customer account.  But in the instant case since the amount was wrongly credited to the account of C.V. Nanda Kumar and had transferred through RTGS to the account of deceased complainant maintained by opposite party No.1-Bank, no fault could be find on opposite party No.1 & 2.  Hence any kind of deficiency of service cannot be attributed against opposite party No.1 & 2.  Accordingly we answer this point in negative.

16.    POINT NO.2:-     The complainant sought a direction to opposite party No.1-Bank to credit a sum of Rs.9,00,000/- with interest.  In view of the findings given on point No.1 the complainants are not entitle for the said relief sought.  If the complainants have any grievance against K.C. Ravindranath with regard to issue of stale cheque and if any amount due from him, they can work-out their problem before competent Court of Law.  Hence this issue is answered in negative.

17.    POINT NO.3:- In view of the discussion made above, we proceed to pass the following:-

ORDER

The complaint is dismissed with an observation that, if the complainants have any grievance against K.C. Ravindranath with regard to the issue of stale cheque and if any amount is due from him, they can work-out their problem before the competent court of Law.

No order as to costs.

Supply free copy of this order to both the parties and return extra copies of the pleading and evidence to the parties.

Applications pending, if any, stands disposed-off in terms of the aforesaid judgment.

  (Dictated to the Stenographer, typed by him, the transcript corrected, revised and then pronounced in the open Commission on 18^th Day of MAY 2023)                                             

• REKHA SAYANNAVAR)    (RAJU K.S)         (SHIVARAMA. K)    

            MEMBER               MEMBER              PRESIDENT

//ANNEXURE//

Witness examined for the complainant side:

Sri. C.V. Vijaya Kumar, complainant’s son, (PW-1) has filed affidavit in the form of his evidence in chief.

Documents got marked for complainant side:

1. Original Special Power of Attorney dt.10.08.2017 –EX.P.1.
2. Original pass book in respect of deceased complainant maintained at Canara Bank – Ex.P.2.
3. Copy of complaint dt.06.03.2017 given to General Manager, Canara Bank, through RPAD – Ex.P.3.
4. Copy of complaint dt.08.03.2017 sent to Banking Ombudsman by deceased complainant –EX.P.4.
5. Copy of the letter dt: 07.04.2017 sent to the Manager, Canara Bank – Ex.P.5.
6. Letter dt.29.05.2017 sent by deceased complainant to general manager – Ex.P.6.
7. Copy of the reminder dt.29.05.2017 sent to Banking Ombudsman – Ex.P.7.
8. Letter dt.14.07.2017 sent by Banking Ombudsman to deceased complainant – Ex.P.8.
9. Copy of the letter dt.16.02.2017 sent by Canara Bank to deceased complainant – Ex.P.9.
10. Copy of the Evasive Reply dt.30.08.2017 given by the Deputy General Manager to deceased complainant – Ex.P.10.
11. Detailed reply dt.13.10.2017 sent by deceased complainant to the Deputy General Manager – Ex.P.11.
12. Three postal receipts – Ex.P.12, 13 & 14.
13. Power of attorney executed by brother and sisters – EX.P.15.

Witness examined for the opposite party No.1 side:   

Sri. Praveen Kumar, Manager in opposite party No.1-Bank (RW-1) has filed affidavit in the form of his evidence in chief.

Documents got marked for opposite party No.1 side:

01.    Office copy of the letter written by opposite party No.1 to complainant on 16.02.2017 – EX.R.1.

02. True copy of the postal receipt-Ex.R.1(a).

03. True copy of the postal acknowledgement – EX.R.1(b).

04. True copy of bank statement of Mr. Nandakumar C.V. maintained at Vijaya Bank – EX.R.2.

05. 03 letters addressed to the Branch Manager, Canara Bank by the Chief Manager of Vijaya Bank dated: 21.02.2017, 22.02.2017 & 13.03.2017 – EX.R.3 to EX.R.5.

06. Statement of SB account bearing No.2699101003607 pertaining to complainant from 01.02.2017 to 07.03.2017 – Ex.R.6.

Witness examined for the opposite party No.2 side:   

Sri. J.Murali Mohan, Assistant Manager and authorized signatory of opposite party No.2-Bank (RW-2) has filed affidavit in the form of his evidence in chief.

Sri. Sanjay Kumar Arya, Branch Manager in opposite party No.2-Bank (RW-3) has filed affidavit in the form of his evidence in chief.

Documents got marked for opposite party No.2 side:

1. Attested copy of cheque bearing No.190895 dt.03.02.1917, for a sum of Rs.9,00,000/- drawn on SBM – Ex.R.7.
2. Statement of account pertaining to Nandakumar C.V. of Vijaya Bank – Ex.R.8.
3. Copy of letter dt.21.02.2017 from the Chief Manager of Vijaya Bank to Canara Bank, - Ex.R.9.
4. Note before the chief manager dt.22.02.2017 placed by chief manager, assistant branch manager and assistant manager of Vijaya Bank – Ex.R.10.
5. Copy of letter dt.22.02.2017 from the Chief Manager, Vijaya Bank to Canara Bank regarding reversal of RTGS – Ex.R.11.
6. 2 credit vouchers dt.22.02.2017 of OP No.2 Bank –EX.R.12 & EX.R.13 respectively.
7. Two debit vouchers of OP-2 Bank dt.22.02.2017 – EX.R.14 & EX.R.15.
8. Copy of letter dt.13.03.2017 written by OP No.2 Bank to Canara Bank – Ex.R.16.
9. Attested copies of computer generated email (2 pages) – Ex.R.17.
10. Carbon copy of cheque return memo dt.09.03.2017-EX.R.18.
11. Ledger extract of postal receipt – EX.R.19.

• REKHA SAYANNAVAR)    (RAJU K.S)         (SHIVARAMA. K)    

            MEMBER               MEMBER              PRESIDENT