+ Submit Your Complaint
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 24

Thread: State Bank of Mysore

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    2,988

    Default State Bank of Mysore

    COMPLAINT FILED: 27.09.2008 BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN) 21st MARCH 2009 PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER COMPLAINT NO. 2126/2008 COMPLAINANTS 1. Smt. Savithri. K.C. W/o. B.R. Prasad, Aged 50 years, Residing at No. 44/A, 7th Main Road, Railway Colony, Shankarnagar, Mahalakshmi Layout, Bangalore – 560 096. 2. Simi Prasad, D/o. B.R. Prasad, Aged 24 years, Residing at No. 44/A, 7th Main Road, Railway Colony, Shankarnagar, Mahalakshmi Layout, Bangalore – 560 096. Advocate (K.N. Praveen Kumar) V/s. OPPOSITE PARTY The Branch Manager, State Bank of Mysore, Ist Block, Rajajinagar Branch, Bangalore – 560 010. Advocate (T.S. Mahabaleswara) O R D E R This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to pay a sum of Rs.8,700/- and compensation of Rs.50,000/- on an allegations of deficiency in service. The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under: The present complainants are having joint account at OP bearing No. 54021775687. Complainant deposited a cheque bearing No. 378662 drawn on ICICI Bank issued by one Smitha Pillai for a sum of Rs.8,700/- on 23.04.2008. The said Smitha Pillai had a sufficient balance at her account when she issued the said cheque. Though initially OP credited the amount to their account but subsequently on 02.05.2008 debited the said amount from complainant account with a remark claim of clearing 23.04.2008 transferred to 09854440197. The arbitrary act of the OP has caused both mental agony and financial loss to the complainant, that too for no fault of theirs. The repeated requests and demands made by the complainants to re-credit the said amount covered under the cheque, went in futile. Hence complainant felt the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Under the circumstances they are advised to file this complaint and sought for the relief accordingly. 2. On appearance, OP filed the version denying all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. According to OP it has not received credit of the related cheque. On enquiry they came to know that the related cheque has been listed to Vijaya Bank instead of ICICI Bank by the Canara Bank MICR Center. When OP Bank contacted Vijaya Bank it was informed that they have not received the referred cheque. Under the circumstances it is the sole duty of the Canara Bank MICR Center to sort out and send the cheque to the concerned Bank and credit the amount to the respondent Bank properly. No fault lies with the OP. Complainants have to redress their grievance against the Canara Bank and Vijaya Bank. Till today the proceeds of the said cheque are received by the OP nor the cheque is returned to them. There is an option for the complainant to obtain duplicate cheque. Though it was informed to the complainants they have not exhausted the said remedy. The details of the drawer was also furnished, no action is taken. The non-cooperation of the complainant prevented the OP from persuing the matter with the drawer of the cheque. The complaint is devoid of merits. Among these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP has also filed the affidavit evidence and produced the documents. Then the arguments were heard. 4. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under: Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant has proved the deficiency in service on the part of the OP? Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs now claimed? Point No. 3 :- To what Order? 5. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on: Point No.1:- In Affirmative Point No.2:- Affirmative in part Point No.3:- As per final Order. R E A S O N S 6. At the outset it is not at dispute that these complainants have got the S.B. Account at OP Bank and they deposited a cheque drawn on ICICI Bank by one Smt. Smitha Pillai for a sum of Rs.8,700/- on 23.04.2008. It is also not at dispute that initially OP credited the said amount to the account of the complainants, but subsequently on 02.05.2008 it is debited from the complainants account with some remark. When complainant questioned the said arbitrary act of the OP, OP did not respond positively and gave evasive reply. Hence they felt the deficiency in service. Complainant even caused the notice. Again there was no response from the OP. The evidence of the complainant appears to be very much natural, cogent and consistent. There is nothing to discard the sworn testimony of the complainant, it finds corroboration from the contents of the undisputed documents. 7. As against this unimpeachable evidence of the complainant, the defence set out by the OP appears to be defence for defence sake, it wants to throw the burden and blame on the Canara Bank MICR Center and Vijaya Bank. It appears the Canara Bank sent the said cheque to the Vijaya Bank instead of ICICI Bank. When OP came to know of the said fact it would have got sorted out the said mistake immediately and would have helped the customer the consumer like complainants, but they have not taken any steps. When there is a proof that complainants deposited the said cheque with the OP, it is for the OP to comply the other formalities, but it is not done. Here we find the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. 8. Merely because till today the proceeds of cheque nor the cheque is returned to the OP, is no ground. It is for the OP to make sincere efforts by contacting Canara Bank MICR Center and Vijaya Bank and help the customer, but it has failed in its duty. Strangely OP has come up with a defence that complainants would have obtained the duplicate cheque from the person who has given it. Why should complainants obtain the duplicate cheque when no fault lies with them. So OP cannot direct the complainant what they should do, it is advisable OP should discharge its obligation. Again no such steps are taken. Under such circumstances we find there is a liability on the part of the OP in not extending defect free service. 9. We are satisfied that the complainant is able to prove the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. As already observed by us, for no fault of theirs, complainants were made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. Under such circumstances they are entitled for the relief claimed. Accordingly we answer point nos.1 and 2 and proceed to pass the following: O R D E R The complaint is allowed in part. OP is directed to pay Rs.8,700/- to the complainant in pursuance of the cheque referred to and also pay a compensation of Rs.1,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.500/-. This order is to be complied within 4 weeks from the date of its communication.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    2,988

    Default State Bank of Mysore

    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.16/2009 Order dated this the 9th day of April 2009 COMPLAINANT/S Sri.S.N.Shivaramu S/o Late Narayanappa, R/o No.123, Kapila Marga, Siddarthanagar, Mysore. (By Sri.T.N.Nagananda., Advocate) -Vs- OPPOSITE PARTY/S 1. The Manager, State Bank of Mysore, Krishnarajapete Branch, Krishnarajapete, Mandya District. 2. Smt.Sumithramma W/o Late Nanjundaiah, Sarangi Village, Santhebachanahalli Hobli, Krishnarajapete Taluk, Mandya District. (EXPARTE) Date of complaint 13.02.2009 Date of service of notice to Opposite parties 19.02.2009 Date of order 09.04.2009 Total Period 1 Month 20 Days Result The complaint is dismissed as not maintainable and the complainant is directed to approach the Civil Court for the relief sought for. Sri.Siddegowda, President 1. This complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 against the Opposite party for a direction to continue the fixed deposit which is in the joint account and to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/-. 2. The case of the complainant is that by selling the family properties, the amount was deposited in FD in the Opposite party Bank in the joint account of the complainant and his brother’s wife Smt.Sumithramma (2nd Opposite party) in joint account No.C.S.T.D.R.98063775 amounting to Rs.1,00,650/- with provision to deposit the accrued interest to the S.B. account of the 2nd Opposite party, so that 2nd Opposite party could utilize that amount for her maintenance. The said F.D. receipt was renewed on 31.12.2006 in joint account with same provision. In the month of May 2008, when the complainant enquired in the Opposite party Bank, it was learnt that the entire FD amount had been taken by the 2nd Opposite party, though it was joint account. Further, the 2nd Opposite party has obtained loan of Rs.10,000/- from the Opposite party Bank on her pension amount and paid two installments at Rs.500/- each. Later loan of Rs.27,000/- was obtained on the FD receipt jointly by the complainant and 2nd Opposite party and it was agreed to deduct Rs.1,500/- from the pension of the 2nd Opposite party, but the Opposite party Bank has not deducted the loan installment from the pension account of the 2nd Opposite party and failed to discharge their duties in collusion with the 2nd Opposite party. The complainant came to know that the entire FD amount has been released by the Opposite party Bank in favour of the 2nd Opposite party, though it is a joint account FD and in this regard legal notice dated 20.05.2008 was issued. The Opposite party Bank has sent reply pleading that the complainant has put consent signatures to the loan documents in case of non-payment of the loan to adjust from the FD amount and therefore, the loan amount with interest totally Rs.39,242/- was deducted from the FD amount and the account was closed on 09.01.2008 and the remaining Rs.64,758/- was credited to the SB account of the 2nd Opposite party. But, the complainant has put consent signature for the loan purpose of 2nd Opposite party and not agreed for the realisation of the loan amount from the FD receipt. Therefore, the action of the 1st Opposite party is dereliction of duty and have committed deficiency in service. The transaction of adjusting the loan amount from the FD amount was not brought to the notice of the complainant and therefore, the consent signature for the said transaction does not arise. The alleged signatures for the adjustment of FD amount to the loan are except forged signatures and not consent signatures. Therefore, the present complaint is filed. 3. The notice was issued to 1st Opposite party and though served, 1st Opposite party has remained absent and thus 1st Opposite party is placed exparte. 4. The complainant has filed affidavit and the documents. 5. We have heard the counsel for the complainant. 6. Now the points that arise for our considerations are:- 1. Whether the complaint is maintainable before the Consumer Forum? 2. Whether the 1st Opposite party has committed deficiency in service? 3. Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief sought for? 7. Our findings and reasons are as here under:- 8. From the available records, the undisputed facts are that the complainant and 2nd Opposite party Smt.Sumithramma deposited amount of Rs.1,06,050/- in joint account on 19.08.2006 for fixed period with provision to transfer the interest to the account of 2nd Opposite party Smt.Sumithramma and again on 31.12.2006, the said FD was renewed under joint account No.C.S.P/T.D.R.98063775 and said Smt.Sumithramma has borrowed the loan. According to the reply notice of the Opposite party Bank, the loan was borrowed by offering the FD receipt as security and the complainant has put signature for all the loan documents and since Smt.Sumithramma did not pay the interest and loan amounting to Rs.39,242/- as on 09.01.2008, it was adjusted from the FD amount and remaining Rs.64,758/- was credited to the S.B. Account of Sumithramma. But, according to the complainant, though on the security of FD bond, loan of Rs.27,000/- was sanctioned with consent of the complainant and 2nd Opposite party, but he had agreed to adjust Rs.1,500/- from the pension account of the 2nd Opposite party to the loan borrowed and hence, the complainant has not at all consented and executed documents to adjust the FD amount to the loan borrowed and if any documents are there, the signatures are forged and without bringing to the notice of the complainant, FD amount has been adjusted to the loan and this came to his knowledge, after receipt of the reply notice from the Opposite party Bank. when it is admitted that FD is given as security for the loan of Rs.27,000/-, it cannot be said that bank has no authority to adjust the same if loan is not cleared in view of the right of general lien under Section 171 of Contract Act. 9. Now, the complainant has pleaded that the fraud is committed by the Opposite party Bank and his signatures are forged for the loan documents, though had not agreed for adjustment of the FD amount to the loan amount. 10. Even though, 1st Opposite party Bank has remained exparte and has not adduced documents controverting the allegations made by the complainant, but the very allegations in the complaint go to show the pleadings of fraud and the forging of the signatures of the complainant for the loan documents. These allegations are of Civil nature and cannot be decided by this Forum as the Forum has jurisdiction only to consider whether the Opposite party Bank has committed deficiency in service to a customer. The allegations of the complainant against the Opposite party Bank required detail pleadings, evidence and documents are required to be dealt by the Civil Court in detail in Civil Suit and the allegations cannot be decided in a summary trial which is to be adopted by the Consumer Forum. Therefore, considering the facts of the case, we are of the opinion that it is just and proper to refer the parties to Civil Court for proper adjudication of the controversies pleaded and hence the question of deficiency in service and the relief sought for, does not survive for consideration. 11. In the result, we proceed to pass the following order; ORDER The complaint is dismissed as not maintainable and the complainant is directed to approach the Civil Court for the relief sought for.

  3. #3

    Default State Bank of Mysore

    Sri.T.K.S.Babu s/o. K.T.Krishnamurthy,

    Aged about 53 years,

    R/o. 5th cross, Sri Naga Nilaya, Complainant

    Siddaganga Extension,

    Tumkur town

    (By advocate Sri.Bendre KumarT.)



    AND



    1. The Branch Manager,

    State Bank of Mysore,

    Main branch, Church Square,

    Tumkur town Opposite parties

    2. The Manager,

    District Co-operative Central Bank Ltd,

    Koratagere branch,

    Koratagere

    3. The Manager,

    Professional courier,

    1st Cross, Mandipete,

    Tumkur town

    ORDER

    This is a complaint filed Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called as Act for short.

    2. Through this complaint, the complainant prays for an order against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter called as the OPs for short) to pay the cheque amount of Rs.85,000/- with interest from the date of presentation of the cheque till its realisation and to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards damages, mental agony along with costs and for such other reliefs.

    3. The facts given rise to institute the complaint may be summarized as thus:

    It is his grievances that, he is the customer of the 1st OP having SB account in that branch office vide SB A/c. No.54040321516. It is contended that, he had presented the cheque bearing No.32494 of 2nd OP branch for a sum of Rs.85,000/- for realization on 10-11-2008 through the 1st OP. The 1st OP had sent the cheque for realisation through 3rd OP (courier) to the 2nd OP branch. The said cheque was issued in favour of the complainant by Smt.Nagarathnamma w/o. Siddagangaiah of Bodabandanahally, Koratagere taluk.


    4. It is further contended that, after 3 to 4 days, the complainant when verified the balance in his account, he did not find the realisation of the cheque. Immediately, the complainant enquired the same with the 1st OP about non clearance of the said cheque, but the 1st OP dodged the matter on one or other way. Further, the complainant visited so many occasions before the 1st OP and enquired about the clearance of the cheque, but he did not get any positive result from the 1st OP.


    5. It is further contended that, after lapse of 3 ˝ months, the complainant has got issued a legal notice to the OPs No.1 and 2 on 2-3-2009 and the said notices were duly served on the OPs No.1 and 2. On 5-3-2009 the 2nd OP has replied the same stating that the said cheque has not been received at any point of time for realisation. But the 1st OP did not reply the same.

    6. It is further contended that, the complainant had entered into an agreement with one person in respect of purchase of the property believing the encashment of the said cheque. The said agreement came to be terminated as he was unable to comply with the terms and conditions of the agreement. Due to the said facts, the complainant has suffered a lot both physically, mentally and financially. The cause of action arose on 10-11-2008 and legal notice dated 2-3-2009. Hence, this complaint.

    7. Among the OPs who have been notified of the complaint, the 1st OP put in his appearance through his counsel and resisted the same. The 2nd OP appeared in person. The 3rd OP inspite of service of the notice remained absent and accordingly he was placed exparte.

    8. The gist of the objections is as follows:

    The 1st OP while emphatically denying the complaint averments as false and untenable however admitted the allegation of presenting a cheque No.32494 dated 20-8-2008 for collection on 10-11-2008 through the 3rd OP from the 2nd OP. In so far as, other details narrated in the same para-2 of the complaint, he pleaded his lack of knowledge.


    9. It is further alleged that, the complainant did not turn up for over a period of 1 month. Later when he came, it was noticed that, the cheque was neither returned nor realized, the same was intimated to the complainant and started making enquiries about the cheque through the State Bank of Mysore, branch at Koratagere and with the 3rd OP. The cheque is not yet traced as it appears to have been lost in the transit. The 3rd OP has to state about the fact. Accordingly, he prays for dismissal of the complaint.

    10. In the objections filed by the 2nd OP, it is contended that, the complainant never presented the cheque for encashment through SBM Main branch Tumkur. It is also contended that said cheque has not been received by this bank for encashment. Therefore it is contended that there is no deficiency in service nor he is liable to pay any damages. It is also contended that, he is not a necessary party to the proceeding.

    11. In support of the case, the complainant and the 1st OP have filed their affidavits. The complainant has pressed in to service of several documents. We have heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties. We have also examined the materials available on record.

    12. The questions that arise for our considerations are:

    1. Is there is any deficiency of service by the OPs?

    2. Is the complainant entitled for the relief as prayed for?

    13. Our findings on the above questions are here under:

    Point No.1: Affirmative as against the 1st OP

    Point No.2: As per order

    REASONS

    14. At the very threshold, we must point out that, the allegation of the complainant in so far as, his SB account No.54040321516 with the 1st OP and presentation of a cheque bearing No.32494 in respect of sum of Rs.85,000/- is concerned, there is no dispute. It is also not in a dispute that the said cheque has been received by the 1st OP for encashment from the 2nd OP. It is also not in dispute that, the amount in question has not yet been realized and credited to the account of the complainant. It is the case of the complainant that, despite making enquires with the 1st OP about the cheque no positive reply was given. From the document produced by the complainant, it is seen that, he had presented the cheque of Rs.85,000/- bearing No.32494 of 2nd OP for encashment and credit to his account No.54040321516.

    The said document bears the seal of the 1st OP branch and signature of the concerned official of the said branch. When the 1st OP has received the cheque from the complainant for realization through the 2nd OP the burden shifts on the 1st OP to establish that, it had presented the cheque for encashment from the 2nd OP through the 3rd OP. The legal notice issued by the complainant and reply given by the 2nd OP clearly demonstrated that, the cheque was not received by the 2nd OP. Therefore, the 1st OP should explain as to what had happened to the cheque and why the amount was not realized and credited to the account of the complainant. The conduct of the 1st OP in denying the allegation of the complainant evenafter admission of the presentation of the cheque for realization from the 2nd OP, clearly spells out their deficiency in service.

    It is neither pleaded by the 1st OP that, he had promptly presented the cheque for encashment from the 2nd OP by availing the service of the 3rd OP nor placed materials to show their bonafide action taken in this regard. Admittedly, the cheque in question has not been realized and credited to the account of the complainant. Therefore, in our view, the 1st OP is primarily guilty of negligence of its duties and thereby committed in deficiency in service. As such, we are of the opinion that, the 1st OP is liable to make good of the cheque amount and also to pay a reasonable compensation for causing mental agony and unnecessary hindrance to the complainant. Under the circumstance of the case, we quantify the compensation of Rs.5000/-.


    15. Being that opinion, we proceed to pass the following:

    ORDER

    The complaint is allowed in part with costs, directing the 1st OP to pay cheque amount of Rs.85,000/- together with compensation of Rs.5, 000/- to the complainant with in 8 weeks from the date of this order failing which, the 1st OP shall pay an interest at the rate of 10% per annum on the said sum of Rs.85,000/- from 10-11-2008 till payment. The costs of the proceedings is fixed at Rs.1000/-. It is also ordered that, the bank is liberty to make an enquiry against the errored person and recover it from such person. The complaint as against the OPs No.2 and 3 is hereby dismissed but without costs.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,356

    Default State Bank of Mysore

    I. Name of the compalinant: - Sri. Prashant Bhat S/o: Srikanth Bhat,

    Age: 55 Years, Occ: Leftinent in Defence.

    R/o: Firdos Nagar, Near I.B.

    Koppal, Tq:Dist: Koppal.




    VERSUS



    II. Name of the Opposite Parties: -
    1. The Manager,
    State Bank of Mysore,
    Hospet Road, Koppal.



    2. The Manger,
    State Bank of India,
    I.M.A. Premnagar,
    Dehra-Dun, (Uttaranchal).





    ORDER




    2. Brief facts of case are that, the complainant while he was serving in army at Dehra-dun had obtained SB A/c No.30211774461 with the 2nd opposite party and also having ATM facility to draw money from his said account. He had given ATM card to his father to use it in case of emergency; as such on 01-02-2008 father of the complainant went to State Bank of Mysore, Branch-Koppal (1st opposite party) and tried to withdraw Rs.4,000/- by putting ATM card properly at ATM installed in premises of the Bank. He did not get money despite operating the machine properly. However, in account of the complainant Rs.4,000/- was debited. He enquired with the opposite parties, they failed and neglected to process matter properly and delayed the same near about 1 year.


    Thus they have prevented the complainant to use sum of Rs.4,000/- for almost an year, which amounts to indirect deficiency in service on their part. As the father of the complainant was in need of money and could not get the same due to non-functioning of ATM installed at premises of the 1st opposite party, which amounts to indirect deficiency and negligence on part of the opponents, for which the complainant has suffered physically and mentally. With these and among other contentions he has prayed to grant compensation as claimed in the complaint.


    3. Upon service of summons both the opposite parties have appeared through their respective counsels and filed their separate written version. In its written version, the 1st opposite party denied allegations made in the complaint as false and baseless. Moreover, the complainant is not their customer; on the alleged date no excess money was found at bottom of the ATM box, as such the 1st opposite party is not responsible for the allegations made in the complaint.


    However, the 1st opposite party wrote a letter to the 2nd opposite party on 13-11-2008 stating that the transaction extract dated: 01-02-2008 pertaining to their ATM is not available due to technical defects, which is internal matter between the banking facilities and same is answerable to bankers but not to the complainant. There is no deficiency in service on part of this opposite party. With these and among other contentions learned counsel for the 1st opposite party has prayed to dismiss the complaint in the interest of justice and equity.


    4. The 2nd opposite party in its written version has contended that the complainant might have SB A/c and ATM facility with State Bank of India, Dehra-dun. They further admits that the complainant’s father might have visited ATM counter of the 1st opposite party and may not received amount from the ATM; this may be due to mistake in ATM system, which is quite natural, as there are thousands of ATM units established throughout India, such mistakes are very likely to happen for no fault on part of any banking institutions and its officers; for rectification of such machinery mistakes sufficient time is required.


    The 1st opposite party has admittedly taken all possible steps to correct mistake found in ATM machine and more particularly sum of Rs.4,000/-, which was wrongly parked has been credited to the complainant’s account on 07-03-2009 itself. The complainant is aware of this fact, as such his grievance thus no more subsist. There will be no willful negligence or deficiency in service on part of this opposite party. With these contentions, the 2nd opposite party has prayed to dismiss the complaint with cost.


    5. In order to prove allegations made in the complaint, the complainant, Sri. Prashant Bhat S/o: Srikanth Bhat, R/o: Koppal has filed his evidence on affidavit; same is treated as PW1 and closed his side. Sri. K.D.Kulakarni, Manager, State Bank of India, Koppal has filed his evidence on affidavit on behalf of the 2nd opposite party, same is treated as RW1.


    6. Arguments were heard from both sides, on perusal of material placed by both sides including decision relied upon by learned counsel for the complainant reported in 207 (1) CPR - 336 (NC) in the matter of J.P.Sharma V/s ICICI Bank Ltd., following points that arise for our consideration are;


    1. Whether the complainant proves that he was deprived by the opponents to use sum of Rs.4,000/- for about an year, which amounts to their indirect deficiency in service as alleged in the complaint?

    2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief sought for?

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,356

    Default State bank of mysore

    COMPLAINANT



    SRI.J. LAKSHMANA RAO,

    ADVOCATE, BELLARY.



    //VS//



    1. THE BRANCH MANAGER,

    STATE BANK OF MYSORE,

    CANTONMENT BRANCH, BELLARY.



    2. THE BRANCH MANAGER,

    STATE BANK OF MYSORE,

    COWL BAZAR BRANCH, BELLARY.



    3. THE ASSISTANT GENERAL

    MANAGER, S.B.M. REGION NO.4,

    BELLARY.



    4. THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER,

    S.B.M., STATION ROAD, HUBLI.







    //JUDGMENT//



    This is the complaint filed by Complainant M.Arifulla against Respondent No.1 to 4 under Sec-12 of C.P. Act for to direct them to pay a sum of Rs.4,74,619/-, to close the Account of Delta Group, CB SBM, Bellary and to pay damage to the extent of Rs.8,00,000/- for not communicating compromise settlement order and to pay an amount of Rs.3,25,381/-towards mental agony, damages and other charges with other reliefs as deems fit to the circumstances of this case.



    2. The brief facts of the Complainant’s case are that;



    He is holding Two Accounts in his name at S.B.M. Cantonment Branch (Respondent No.1) and two Accounts in the name of his Son and his wife at S.B.M. Cowl Bazaar Branch (Respondent No.2) and one account in the name of Delta Group.


    They obtained loan of Rs.25,00,000/- and Rs.3,00,000/- from the Respondent No.1 in the name of Complainant and Rs.25,00,000/-, Rs.3,00,000/- and Rs.15,00,000/- in the name of his son from the Respondent No.2. His business became under loss. He is not in a position to satisfy the loan. Hence, they decided to wound up his business as such he approached the Respondents for compromise settlement on OTS basis. Concession asked by him for waiver of Rs.16.29 lakhs. The Respondents not properly responded to his request. He submitted his Memorandum of Compromise on OTS basis in writing to the Respondents, but they have not responded properly inspite of his repeated request. He exhausted all his available sources to satisfy the loan, but the Respondents not considered his request in writing even though oral assurance was given to him. They were negligent in considering his request and thereby the Respondents found guilty under deficiency in their services.




    3. The Respondent No.1 to 4 appeared in this case through their Advocate. The Respondent No.2 filed his Written Version and Respondent No.1, 3 and 4 have adopted the W.V. of Respondent No.2. The brief facts of W.V. of them are that;


    There is no deficiency in service on their part. As per the terms and conditions of loan documents, the Complainant not repaid the loan amount. He submitted his application for settlement of the claim under OTS. His application was rejected and informed to him. The controlling authority of the Bank namely Zonal Office, Divisional Office have rejected the claim of Complainant. An amount of Rs.2,53,603/- was paid to the Account of son of the Complainant. The Complainant not paid the outstanding dues as per his undertaking and OTS subject to payment of dues within the stipulated time.


    The Complainant took sufficient time to pay the loan amount, but not paid. All other allegations made against them have been denied. The Complainant obtained loan for the purchase of lorries for business purpose. He closed four accounts out of five accounts. One A/C No.5401412350 stands in the name of Delta Group is pending by showing outstanding balance amount of Rs.77,70,023/- with accrued interest. Hence, the complaint is not maintainable. Accordingly, they prayed for to dismiss the complaint among other grounds.


    4. In view of the pleadings of parties, now the points that arise for our consideration and determination are that;



    1. Whether the Complainant proves that the Respondent No.1 and 2 and their authorities Respondent No.3 and 4 not issued compromise settlement order on OTS basis, but they have issued illegal notice by demanding to pay Rs.16.29 lakhs from him without closing his accounts inspite of several oral and written requests, they are showing negligence in fulfilling his request, therefore, all the Respondents found guilty under deficiency in their services towards him?


    2. Whether the Complainant is entitled for reliefs as prayed in this complaint?



    3. To what relief the Complainant is entitled for?

    //POINTS//



    5. Our findings on the above points are as under.




    Point No.1:


    In Negative.



    Point No.2:


    In Negative.


    Point No.3:


    In view of the findings on Point Nos.1 and 2, we pass the final order for the following;

    //REASONS//
    Point Nos.1 & 2: -


    6. In order to prove the facts involved in these two Points, the affidavit evidence of Complainant was filed, he was noted as P.W.1. Documents Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.18 are marked. On the other hand, the affidavit evidence of Branch Manager, S.B.M. Cowl Bazaar Branch Respondent No.2 was filed, he was noted as R.W.1. Documents Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.18 are marked.



    7. We have observed from the pleadings of Complainant, his affidavit evidence P.W.1 and documentary evidences Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.18 and the Written Version of Respondents, evidence of R.W.1 and documentary evidences Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.18 that, this Complainant has opened two Accounts in the name of his son and one account in the name of Delta Group. He obtained loan of Rs.25,00,000/- and Rs.3,00,000/- in his name and Rs.25,00,000/- and Rs.3,00,000/- in the name of his son and Rs.15,00,000/- in the name of Delta Group from the Respondent No.1 and 2 Banks.


    Further it goes to show that he borrowed the loan with the Respondent No.1 and 2 under agreement for the purpose of purchase of Lorries for to run his commercial business. Further it appears to us that this Complainant has sustained loss and opted for to settlement of the said loan by way of compromise settlement on OTS basis by filing terms and conditions of the compromise. Further it appears to us that, four loan accounts of them were closed and one account not closed due to non-satisfaction of the entire amount. Further, it goes to show that, this Complaint arisen out of dispute regarding the payment of loan amount in between Complainant and Respondents.


    8. The agreements in between Complainant and Respondents are in respect of the said loan transactions which is based private agreement in between them and further it appears to us that the Respondents are not ready to entertain the compromise settlement on OTS basis due to non-payment of full loan amount. Under the said circumstances, we are of the view that, the dispute in between the Complainant and Respondents financier Banks is in respect of loan transactions and in such transactions there cannot be any deficiency in service by the Respondent No.1 and 2 Banks. Relied on the principles of the ruling reported in II (2000) CPJ 120 Asad Ullah Khan Vs. M.C. Motors & Ors., and I (1998) CPJ 16 Kulwant Singh Vs. Singh Finance Pvt. Ltd. Accordingly, we answered Point No.1 in Negative.



    9. In view of finding on Point No.1, the Complainant is not entitled for any one of the reliefs as prayed in this complaint. Accordingly, we answered Point No.2 in Negative.


    Point No.3: -


    10. In view of findings on Point Nos.1 & 2, we pass the following;

    The complaint filed by the Complainant is dismissed. All the parties to this complaint are directed to bear their own costs.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    12

    Default

    good one on mysore bank.
    www.deal4loans.com

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    2,001

    Default

    COMPLAINT NO.561/09

    1. Sri. Abhilash Anand

    Aged about 24 years

    S/o. Sri. R. Anand
    2. Sri. Aditya Anand

    Aged about 19 years

    S/o. Sri. R. Anand



    Both are residing at

    No.5/4,3rd Street

    3rd Cross, Pemmegowda Road

    J.C. Nagar

    Bangalore-560 006
    COMPLAINT NO.562/09

    Sri. R. Anand

    Proprietor of

    M/s. Whole Some Foods

    No.5/4, 3rd Street, 3rd Cross

    Pemmegowda Road

    J.C. Nagar

    Bangalor5e-560 006
    V/s



    COMMON OPPOSITY PARTY FOR THE ABOVE COMPLAINTS

    Opposite Party:
    State Bank of Mysore

    Ambedkar Veedhi Branch

    Vishweshwaraya Towers

    Bangalore-560 001

    O R D E R
    SRI.D. KRISHNAPPA, PRESIDENT:



    The complainants of the first complaint are the sons of the complainant of the second complainant. The opponents being common in both these complaint with similar allegations against the Op with the prayer for awarding compensation to the complainants are taken together for disposal by a common order to avoid repetition of facts.
    The grievance of the complainant of the first complaint is that their father namely Anand had maintained an account with the Op with OD facility. That their father had made two RD accounts in their name separately with investment of Rs.6,248/- each with interest @ 11% p.a and as on the date of maturity i.e. on 18/05/2002. R.D. amount with interest became payable to them Rs.8,652/- each. The Op even earlier to 18/05/2002 which was the maturity date adjusted the total of Rs.17,304/- which is the maturity value of the investment towards dues of their father. That Op had filed a suit against their father in O.S. No.6929/01 and the Court in that suit directed Op to produce certain documents pertaining to recurring account and on the Op producing such documents they came to know this adjustment of RD towards the dues of their father the complainant of the second complaint and have prayed for direction to the OP to pay them Rs.17,304/- with interest.

    Whereas the complainant of the second complaint narrating that he had maintained account with the Op has stated that he had maintained recurring amount of Rs.25,956/- and that amount has been pre-maturely drawn and adjusted to his account without his consent and thereafter did not allow him to do further transactions. That he had RD of Rs.18,744/- and it was to be matured on 18/05/2002 with maturity value of Rs.25,956/-. But the Op pre-maturely appropriated that amount to his loan account on 29/08/2001. That he was not aware of that adjustment and when the OP filed a suit against him in O.S. No.6929/01 he came to know such adjustment and calling that act of the OP as deficient has prayed for a direction to Op to repay him Rs.25,956/- with interest.

    Op has appeared through his advocate in both cases and filed version. The version filed by the OP in both the cases being almost similar, is that the second complainant had account with them and has transacted in that account but denied that they have appropriated the RD account money of the complainants maintained with them was adjusted to the amount payable by this complaint without intimating him. The Op further stated that the allegations of complainant that he had no knowledge of RD amount adjusted towards his dues and that the complainant came to know the same in the suit referred to above is false. It is the contention of the Op that the complainant of the second complainant had loan account with them and when the second complainant became due Rs.92,061/- and they issued notice, but when they did not receive any reply had filed suit for recovery of Rs.59,697/- after adjusting the amount lying in the R.D. accounts in total sum of Rs.41,131/-. It is further stated that the suit filed by him came to be decreed and in that suit the court had upheld the adjustment of Rs.41,131/- which was the proceeds of RD accounts maintained by the second complaint and also the amount found from the RD accounts of the complainants of first complaint. The Op in the version filed in the first complaint has contended that 2 RD accounts maintained by the father of these complainants in their name as they were minor then was also adjusted towards the loan account of the second complainant and the Op further justifying his action of appropriating the RD amounts of all these complainants towards the amount due by the second complainant, has prayed for dismissal of these complaints.

    In the course of enquiry into the complaint, the complainant of the second complaint and Asst. Chief Manager of Ops have filed their affidavit evidence by reproducing the material facts as stated by them in their respective complaint and version. The complainants of the first complaint have filed copies of photos, Xerox copies of RD investment receipts, copy of legal notice they got issued to the Op with Xerox copies of the marks card of the complainant. Op has filed a complaint copy, copy of the written statement and copy of the judgment passed in OS No.6929/01. Heard the counsel for both the parties and perused the records.

    On basis of materials available before us following points for determination arise.

    1. Is the complaints are not barred by limitation.

    2. Whether the complainants prove that OP has caused deficiency in his service by appropriating RD amount standing in their name towards loan account of the complainant of the second complaint.

    3. To what relief the complainants are entitled to?

    Point No.1 & 2: In the negative.

    Point No.3 : To see the final order.
    REASONS:
    Answer on point No.1 & 2 :
    As found, the complainants of the first complaint have come up with this complaint against the OP claiming that their father had invested Rs.6,248/- each in their names with maturity date as 18/05/2002 with interest @ 11% p.a and become payable at Rs.8,652/- to each of them. But the Op even prior to the date of maturity, without their permission has adjusted those RD amounts to the loan account of their father, the complainant of the second complaint and thereby called this act of OP as deficient. Admittedly these amounts of the complainant got adjusted by the Op to the loan account of the complainant of the second complaint prior to 29/01/2001. But the complainants aggrieved by such act of Op have filed this complaint on 06/03/2009 which are in our view are barred by limitation and therefore, the complaint is to be dismissed as barred by limitation. The complainants have not filed any application for condonation of delay explaining the reasons as to why they did not file complaint within the stipulated period. However, the complainants in order to bring this complaint within the statutory period have contended that they came to know these deposits were pre-maturely closed and that amount was deposited to their father loan account and that came to their knowledge on 11/12/2008. But these complainants in Para 10 of their complaint and also in the body of their affidavit evidence have referred to a suit filed by the Op against their father in O.S No.6929/01, as per the copy of the judgment filed by both parties it is noticed that this suit came to be decreed against the complainants father on 14/07/2008.



    The complainant of the second complaint who is the father of complainant of the first complaint was the defendant against whom the Op filed suit in the year 2001 for recovery of the balance loan amount. The contention of the OP in that case was that they after appropriate the recurring deposits which were stand in the name of these three complainants prematurely to the loan account of the father had filed above suit for recovery of the balance amount. The complainant of the second complaint had contested that case and came to be decreed on 14/07/2008. The second complainant in that proceeds questioned the act of the Op in prematurely closing the RD account and appropriation of entire amount to his loan account. The Court upheld the act of the Op in prematurely closing the RD accounts and adjusting that amount to his loan account therefore when the father who had opened RD account in the names of first two complainants but were minors objected the act of the Op in appropriating those amounts after contest suffered a decree, therefore under these circumstances and facts of the case the complainants of the first complaint cannot be said to had no knowledge about the prematurity withdrawal and adjustment of those amounts to the loan account of their father. Therefore, the stand of the complainant’s that Op by doing so as caused deficiency in their service cannot be accepted. The complainants of the first complaint without questioning the act of the Op since from the time of premature withdrawal and slept over the matter cannot now after lapse of more than 6 to 7 years filing this complaint. Hence, we hold that the complainants are barred by limitations and they are liable to be dismissed on that ground.



    Further it could be seen from the claim of the complainants that they were aware of opening RD accounts in their name by their father and both the RD accounts were to be matured on 18/05/2002. Even assuming that the complainants did not know premature adjustment of those amounts until disposal of suit filed by the Op against their father, they should have enquired and verified to receive the maturity value of the RD’s made, after the deposits become matured on 18/05/2002 or after some time thereafter. Therefore, considering these facts we hold that the complaints found to have had the knowledge of maturity dates and prematurity value of the RD as on 18/05/2002 or even earlier. Thus considering these aspects also the complainants cannot be said they only came to know the adjustment of their RD amount by the Op towards their father loan account through Ops original suit.



    Coming to the second complainant who also claims to had an account maintained with the Op as RD account and he had made RD to the tune of Rs.18,744/- which was to be matured on 18/05/2002 and he would have received total sum of Rs.25,956/-. The second complainant further stated that the Op without waiting for that maturity date, adjusted that RD amount to his loan account on 29/08/2001. This second complainant was a party in the suit filed by the Op in OS No.6929/01 and that suit went on till 14/07/2008, on which date the judgment is delivered. In this proceedings of the suit, the complainant who was a defendant had even questioned the act of opponent in they having had pre-maturely withdrawing the RD accounts standing in the names of these complainants and RD account maintained by this complainant in the name of his wife and children. On perusal of the judgment rendered in that suit the court has up held the action of OP they in prematurely closing the accounts of all these complainants and appropriation of those amounts to the loan account of the second complainant. The complainant did not prefer any appeal questioning the correctness of the judgment referred to above. The Civil Court in the judgment of that suit as dealt with the dispute of both parties including the adjustment of RD accounts maintained in the name of these complainants pre-maturely. Therefore the judgment of the suit has become finality on the allegations of the complainants. The complainants after having suffered a judgment and decree and without challenging it have filed these complaints. Therefore, the complaints presented before this forum are liable to be dismissed on the grounds that they are barred by limitations and no application is filed for condonation of delay. Therefore, both these complaints are liable to be dismissed on the point of limitation.



    Coming to the merits of these complaints as stated above, the grievance of the complainants of the first complaint is regarding appropriation of RD amount invested in their names by their father, by premature withdrawal towards the loan account of the second complaint. The complainant of the second complaint is also that, the OP pre-maturely withdrawn the RD amount of his account and its appropriation to his loan account. These grievance of the complainants have already been categorically dealt with by Civil Court in O.S No.6929/01 which was disposed on 14/07/2008. The Court by referring to the contention of both parties to that suit including pre-mature withdrawal and appropriation of those amount has held that the OP who was plaintiff in that suit has rightly appropriated the RD amounts of both these complaints towards loan account of the complainant of the second complaint. The complainants without questioning the correctness of the judgment and decree passed by Civil Court and after that issue had become final and conclusive have filed these complaints to rake up the dispute which has already been settled and reached its finality. Hence, the matter where the grievance of the complainants/consumers are settled and set at rest by competent Civil Court, this forum cannot sit upon such concluded judgment and act like an appellate court to scrutinize the correctness or other witness of the issue. Therefore, we hold that dispute between the parties have been finally settled by the judgment of the suit and the complainants cannot file these complaints to re-open it and to reagitate. Hence these complaints are liable to be dismissed with cost. Hence, point No.1 answered in the negative and pass the following order.

    O R D E R

    Complaints are dismissed.
    The original order shall be kept in complaint No.561/09 and the copies of the same shall be kept in the remaining complaint.

  8. #8
    Ms. Shakuntala R Guest

    Default Compalaint For Not Receiving money from ATM Counter

    Date 17th February 2010
    From.
    Ms. Shakuntala R
    M.N. Technical Institute.
    Kammagondana Halli,
    Jalahalli west, Abbigere Main Road,
    Bangalore – 560 015.

    To,
    The Manager,
    State Bank India,
    Jalahalli Service Station
    Gokula Branch,
    Bangalore - 560 013.

    Dear Sir,
    Sub: Amount not received at ATM Counter
    Ref: SB A/c No 64020975477 of SBM HMT Ind. Est. Branch
    ATM Card No 5046454002800027596 of SBM HMT. Ind. Est. Branch
    With reference to the above, I would like to inform you that on 16/02/2010 at 10.10AM I had operated ATM Debit card at SBI ATM Counter
    at M/s Jalahalli Service Station Gokula for Rs.10,000/- (Ten Thousand only)
    I did not receive the money nor any account slip due to some online problem throughout Bangalore.
    Today when I enquired my bank SBM Hmt. Ind. Est. Branch found that Rs.10,000/- has been deducted from my SB A/c No 64020975477 during yesterdays (16/02/2010) operation for which I did not receive any money.
    So please kindly credit that Rs. 10,000/- immediately to my
    SB A/c No 64020975477 of SBM HMT Ind. Est. Branch.

    Hope you do the needful and oblige.



    Thanking You, Yours faithfully,
    Date 17th February 2010
    From.
    Ms. Shakuntala R
    M.N. Technical Institute.
    Kammagondana Halli,
    Jalahalli west, Abbigere Main Road,
    Bangalore – 560 015.

    To,
    The Manager,
    State Bank Mysore Bank,
    HMT Indl. Estate, Jalahalli Branch,
    Bangalore - 560 031.

    Dear Sir,
    Sub: Amount not received at ATM Counter
    Ref: SB A/c No 64020975477 of SBM HMT Ind. Est. Branch
    ATM Card No 5046454002800027596 of SBM HMT. Ind. Est. Branch
    With reference to the above, I would like to inform to that on 16/02/2010 at 10.10AM I had operated ATM Debit card at SBI at
    M/s Jalahalli Service Station Gokula for Rs.10,000/- (Ten Thousand only) I did not receive the money nor any account slip due to some online problem throughout Bangalore.
    Today when I enquired my bank SBM Hmt. Ind. Est. Branch found that Rs.10,000/- has been deducted from my SB A/c No64020975477 during yesterdays (16/02/2010) operation for which I did not receive any money.
    So please kindly credit that Rs. 10,000/- immediately to my SB A/c No 64020975477 of SBM HMT Ind. Est. Branch.

    Hope you do the needful and oblige.



    Thanking You, Yours faithfully,

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    2,001

    Default

    COMPLAINT NO.2446 OF 2009

    Dr.B.Keshavan,

    No.11, 2nd Main Road,

    Jayamahal Extension

    Bangalore – 560 046.

    …. Complainant.

    V/s

    01. The Managing Director,

    State Bank of Mysore,

    Head Quarters, Mysore Bank Circle,

    K.G.Road, Bangalore – 560 009.

    02. Senior Manager,

    State Bank of Mysore,

    Madhavanagar Branch,

    Bangalore – 560 001.

    …. Opposite Parties

    -: ORDER:-

    This complaint is filed claiming compensation of Rs.25,000/- from the Opposite Party on the following grounds:-

    2. Miss. K.Silpa the daughter of the complainant had got admission to M.Sc. Decree course in Finance at the Liverpool University, U.K., on 09/06/2009 and therefore she sent the application for VISA to UK along with all original documents regarding her qualifications, Bank financial statements for maintenance and VISA fee of Rs.12,617/- on 30/07/2009. With regard to her educational qualifications she got 30/30 points awarded by the UK Border Agency, Chennai, the authority for issuing VISA to UK. She had submitted two bank statements one from State Bank of Mysore, Madhava Nagar Branch for Rs.5,92,067=96 and the other from Canara Bank, Nandidurga Road Branch for Rs.8,61,061=00 after depositing the funds in those banks in support of her maintenance in UK to get VISA for her higher studies. The Bank statement issued by the Canara Bank was accepted by the VISA issuing agency, but the Bank statement issued by State Bank of Mysore was rejected as it does not contain the date of issue. As a result of mistake committed by the State Bank she got 0/10 points for maintenance under appendix - ”C" of the immigration rules and her VISA was totally rejected. Due to refusal of VISA she lost not only VISA fee of Rs.12,670/- but also suffered mental agony. After noticing the mistake committed by State Bank of Mysore, the entire sum of Rs.5,92,067=60 piase deposited for the purpose of VISA was withdrawn and deposited at Canara Bank, Nandidurga Road Branch and fresh VISA application was submitted along with new Canara Bank statement for about Rs.14,60,000/- and VISA fee of Rs.12,650/- was paid. After facing mental agony for two months, she got the VISA on 15/09/2009 and joined M.Sc Decree course at Liverpool University, U.K. Due to the mistake of not mentioning the date of issue in the Bank statement, she lost not only the VISA fee of Rs.12,670/- but also due to the delay in getting VISA she had to spend extra for flight tickets, railway fares, taxi fares at Birmingham and Liverpool in UK to reach the University campus on her own apart from suffering mental agony. Hence, the complaint.

    3. In the version the contention of the Opposite Parties is as under:-

    The complaint has been filed not by the Account Holder but by the complainant, who represents to be the Father of the Account Holder, therefore the complainant has no locus-standi to agitate upon the issue and as such the complaint is liable to be dismissed. The complainant who has approached this Forum without any locus-standi has also not approached this Forum with clean hands in as much as he has not come up with the true facts but has misrepresented with the sole intention of drawing sympathy and causing embarrassment to the Opposite Party. The statements in Para-1 of the complaint are not within the knowledge of the Opposite Parties. There exist no relationship between the complainant and the Bank with regard to the present issue. Miss. K.Slipa who held the account with Opposite Party sought for a certificate indicating the amounts held by her in the said account by calling over phone and without submitting any written request indicating the manner in which she needed a certificate. The Opposite Parties obliged and issued the certificate indicating the amount held by her in her accounts highlighting the date on which such amounts were available in her credit. The dates on which the certain balance was available has been indicated and highlighted at two places and as such the question of leveling an allegation that the date was not mentioned is far fetched and does not hold any water. The certificate which was sought was a confirmation of availability of the funds as on a certain date which has been mentioned twice in the certificate. As such the question of any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties does not arise. The so called notice of the Immigration Authorities reveals the reasons that the letter from the SBM is not dated – not in line with the requirements of the published guidance, hence these funds not considered. The statement clearly states that the certificate ought to be in a certain format/guidance published by the Immigration Authorities. Therefore, Miss. Slipa who sought for a certificate orally ought to have sought the certificate through written request and should have furnished the format and the guidelines as per which the certificate was required. Since this requirement was not complied with by the seeker of the certificate, it is unfair to level allegations on the Opposite Parties who are very reputed Bank having their own name and fame serving the public at large. There was absolutely no fault nor deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Parties. Therefore the complaint is not maintainable. The individual ought to have been careful and taken requisite precautions. Had the individual sought a certificate in writing clearly indicating the manner in which the same was required and if in spite of it, the Opposite Parties had faulted they could have been questioned. The person who has filed the complaint has nothing to do with the accounts held by the Account Holder and therefore the complaint is totally baseless and deserves to be dismissed.



    4. The complainant has filed rejoinder to the version reiterating the statements in the complaint and further contending that no rules are enacted by the State Bank of Mysore that the complaint must be filed by the Account Holder only.

    5. In support of the respective contentions, both parties have filed affidavits and have produced copies of documents.

    6. The points for consideration are:-
    1. Whether the complainant is a Consumer as defined U/s 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act.

    2. Whether the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Parties?

    3. Whether the complainant entitled to the relief prayed for in the complaint?

    7. Our findings are:-

    Point No.(1) : In the Negative

    Point No.(2) & (3) : Does not survive

    -:REASONS:-

    Point No(1):-

    8. On the own admission of the complainant, it was his daughter Miss. Silpa who had her account with the Opposite Party State Bank of Mysore, she had deposited the funds for the purpose of obtaining the certificate and she requested the Bank to issue the certificate regarding the funds available in her account as the same was required for the purpose of obtaining VISA. From the copies of statement of accounts produced by the Opposite Party it is clear that Miss. Silpa – the daughter of the complainant had opened those accounts and was operating the accounts with the Opposite Party. If at all the certificate issued by the Opposite Party was not in accordance with the guidance of the VISA issuing Authority, the aggrieved person is Miss. K.Silpa – the daughter of the complainant and not the complainant himself. It is not the case of the complainant that he had applied to the Opposite Party Bank on behalf of his daughter requesting for issuance of certificate regarding the funds available in the account of his daughter. When the complainant is not the Account Holder in the Opposite Party Bank when he had not applied for issuance of certificate and when the certificate regarding the availability of funds was not required for his purpose the question of the complainant availing the services of the Opposite Party for consideration does not arise. Though the complaint is filed by the Father, no authority is obtained for that purpose from the Daughter. As such the complainant being not a Consumer is not entitled to file the complaint without any authority on behalf of his daughter or with regard to the grievance of his Daughter. Therefore, being not a Consumer the complainant is not entitled to any relief and as such the complaint itself is not maintainable. As such we answer the point No.1 in the NEGATIVE and hold that the complainant is not a Consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act. To file the complaint on behalf of his daughter it was necessary for the complainant to obtain the authority such as Power of Attorney from his Daughter. No such letter of authority is produced by the complainant. Therefore the complaint filed without authority with regard to the grievance of the Daughter is not maintainable. On this ground alone the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

    9. Even otherwise the sole grievance made out by the complainant is that in the certificate issued by the Opposite Party Bank with regard to availability of funds on a particular date in the account of his Daughter, the date was not mentioned and therefore the VISA issuing authority did not consider the amount available in the account of his Daughter in the State Bank of Mysore. The complainant has produced the certificate issued by the Opposite Party. No doubt in this certificate the date on which the certificate was issued is not mentioned. But the date on which the particular amount was available in the account of the Daughter of the complainant is clearly mentioned at two places. In the notice of Immigration decision dated 17/08/2009 the reason for refusal of the VISA is mentioned as under:-

    “the letter from the SBM is not dated – not in line with the requirements of the published guidance, hence these funds are not considered”.



    From the above reasons mentioned by the VISA issuing Authority it is clear that the letter from the Bank was required to be issued in accordance with the published guidance. It is not the case of the complainant that the Bank was appraised of the requirements with regard to the contents of the certificate in line with the published guidelines of the VISA issuing Authorities and in spite of it the Bank committed mistake by not mentioning the date of issue of the certificate. The fact that no written request was given to the Bank for issue of the certificate is admitted by the complainant. If that is so, when the Bank was not apprise of the requirements of the VISA issuing Authority, the complainant cannot allege deficiency in service on the part of the Bank in not mentioning the date of issue of the certificate. On this ground also the complainant becomes not entitled to claim compensation from the Opposite Parties. In view of the fact that the complaint itself is not filed by competent person, the same is liable to be dismissed. In the result, we pass the following:-

    -:ORDER:-

    1. The complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs.

    2. Send a copy of this order to both parties free of costs, immediately.

    3. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 29th Day of JANUARY 2010.

  10. #10
    Premalatha.N Guest

    Default Regarding money transaction

    Hi sir/madam
    Myself Premalatha.N,having my account in State Bank of Mysore, Bhadravathi branch account number 64051892368.Today evening i draw 400 ammount from my account in kotak ATM near hanumanth nagar,Bangalore, the transaction ws on process the system switched off,and i dint get money as well as receipt.. I had called to Kotak customer service they told me to approach you.could i information about refund...

  11. #11
    Premalatha.N Guest

    Default Regarding money transaction

    from ,
    Premalatha.N,
    D/o narayana murthy,
    lower hutta,
    janata house,
    Bhadravathi.
    Ph. No. :7411640465
    Email: knp.prema@gmail.com

    Hi Sir/Madam,
    Myself Premalatha.N, having my SBM account in Bhadravathi branch.Account number is 64051892368. Today evening i withdraw ammount 400/- from my account in KOtak bank ATM .But i dint get money as well as receipt.I had called to Kotak custemer service they told me approach you.So when i will get refund? could i get information about this....

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    2

    Default Solvency Certificate for Education

    Hi Sir ,

    My name is Ravi , I am applying for US Universities for Master's program . Hence I wanted a solvency certificate so that I can show universities that I have capability to fund my education .
    Today I approached SBI bank Electronic city . The bank staff was not very friendly and was not able to co-operate with me . Finally I was able to contact some one and the person informed he will give only the solvency against my bank balance and not by property ....I am from a middle class family I don't have 30 lakhs in my account to show . So hence I wanted solvency against my property , But the bank staff are saying no we can't give .....upon getting admission I am taking education loan that's how I am planning for Masters .

    But the bank is spoiling my future , without the solvency I will not be able to apply for any of the universities . why these nationalised bank are not understanding . why can't the middle class student can't apply to the universities even if I have some property to prove that I can afford the education

    Please some one help me regarding this as I am short of time . I need to apply to the universities .

    Regards,
    Ravi Narayana
    9738889954
    nrnravi@gmail.com

  13. #13

    Default Sbm- blocked to use other bank atm cards

    Dear sir,

    i wish to put some words in front of you for rectification and help the public,

    i am belonging to channagiri town , dawangiri dist, karnataka state,

    our town is having two nationalized banks, one is state bank of mysore,and another is canara bank,sbm had 2 atm's and canarabank no atm. Genarally all the account holders used to sbm atms only, recently since last month the sbm authorities stopped the acceptance of other bank atm card user transactions, the public are suffring like anything. Because we are not having any atm up to 42 km's. Yester day my couligue is under very serios and want to admit in the hospital we tried for withdrawel from atm but we failed, we are having thousend of rupees in our accounts, but what is the use?, as a humanbeing i struggled like any thing last day and bringing the issue to your forum. Being an employees we are not having time(as per rules) to went the bank and withdraw the salary, we depends on atm's only.
    Hence iam requesting you goodselves to please treat and accept this letter as complaint and give the justice for our channagiri public.


    Thanking you sir,


    m.nagabhushanam.m,
    programmer,
    l.i.c of india,
    channagiri.

    Cell:09483891080

  14. #14
    Unregistered Guest

    Default

    sir,can you please tell me is their any account holder by name B.S.Veda kumar

  15. #15
    Unregistered Guest

    Default Complaint against Branch Manager,SBI,Industrial Area Bangalore

    The Branch Manager Behaves very rudely with the common people coming there for doubts......i am one of the vicitim.I went to make request to the branch manger as my mother is paralysed she cannot come over there if one of the bank person come over there he not only behaved rudely & told that what can i do for that if you want the life certificate she should come....

    Let me tell you the fact i have one of the bank account in ICICI there behaviour is very good .....worst behaviour in SBI...

+ Submit Your Complaint
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. complaint against state bank
    By Manoj Bansal in forum Banking
    Replies: 61
    Last Post: 04-02-2014, 01:44 PM
  2. State Bank of Patiala
    By Sidhant in forum Banking
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 10-22-2013, 03:46 PM
  3. Mysore Sales International Limited
    By Advocate.sonia in forum Judgments
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-16-2009, 12:50 AM
  4. Bank Manger, State Bank of India, Murbad Road
    By Advocate.sonia in forum Judgments
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-02-2009, 05:41 PM
  5. fine without receiving loan cheque DHFL mysore
    By Unregistered in forum Home Loan
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-27-2009, 10:21 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
  •