State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Manager, State Bank Of Travancore vs T.V. Philipose, on 20 December, 2011
Daily Order
Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Vazhuthacaud,Thiruvananthapuram First Appeal No. 489/2004 (Arisen out of Order Dated null in Case No. of District ) 1. The Manager,SBT Valayanchirangara Branch,Ernakulam BEFORE: SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR PRESIDING MEMBER PRESENT: ORDER KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPEAL 489/04
JUDGMENT DATED 20.12.2011
PRESENT:-
JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT
SHRI.S.CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER
APPELLANT The Manager, State Bank of Travancore, Valayanchirangara Branch, Valayanchirangara P.O., Ernakulam Dist.
Rep. by its Branch Manager.
( Rep. by Adv. M. Nizamudeen) RESPONDENTS T.V. Philipose, Thettikkottu Mukalath House, Keezhillam P.O., Ernakulam.
(Rep. by Adv. C.S. Rajmohan) JUDGMENT SHRI. S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER
The order dated 1.6.04 of CDRF, Ernakulam in O.P. 512/2003 is being challenged in this appeal by the opposite party by the impugned order the opposite party is under directions to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 10,000/- and Rs. 1,000/- as costs within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the copy of the order.
The complaint in brief as stated by the complainant is that his son used to send money to his account from Sharja and that on 2.4.03, he was informed by his son that a sum of Rs. 10,000/- had been remitted to the account maintained by the complainant in the opposite party Bank. It is submitted that when he went to withdraw the money the opposite party with held the payment and on 17.4.03, the opposite party issued a notice stating that Rs. 10,000/- was over credited to the account of the complainant as back on 6.9.98 and the non payment of the amount was due to the adjustment of the double payment. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in not paying the amount of Rs. 10,000/- the complainant prayed for directions to the opposite party to pay Rs. 10,000/- with 12% interest Rs. 50,000/- as compensation and costs.
The opposite party resisted the complaint by filing version wherein it was submitted that the complainant was not allowed to withdraw the amount of Rs. 10,000/- because a sum of Rs. 10,000/- was paid to the complainant as double payment on 27.11.98, by mistake. It was also submitted that the mistake of Double payment was detected by the Accounts department of the opposite party and that the refusal to pay Rs. 10,000/- was not any deficiency in service as it can be seen that it was only an adjustment after detection of a mistake. Pleading for the position that there was no deficiency in service, the opposite party prayed for the dismissal of the complaint with costs.
The evidence consisted of the oral testimony of the complainant as Pw1 and Exts. A1 to A4 on his side. On the side of the opposite party Dw1 was examined whose name, address, signature etc. are not seen furnished. Exts. B1 to B7 were marked on the side of the opposite party. It is based on the said evidence that the Forum passed the impugned order.
Heard both sides The learned counsel for the appellant/opposite party vehemently argued before us that the Forum below had gone wrong in directing the opposite party to pay Rs. 10,000/- with cost of Rs. 1,000/- It is his very case that the Forum below had not appreciated the documents produced by the opposite party and also the fact that it was a rectification of mistake of a double payment. He has also canvassed the position that it was as per the Banker's lien that the opposite party acted and the Forum below ought to have held that the opposite party did not commit any deficiency of service.
On hearing both sides, and also on perusing the records, we find that it is admitted by both the parties that the complainant's son used to send money in the account of the complainant and that the sum of Rs. 10,000/-was deposited in the complainant's account on 2.4.2003. It is also admitted by the opposite party that when the complainant approached the opposite party for withdrawal of the said amount, the same was denied by the opposite party. It is argued by the learned counsel for the opposite party/appellant that the opposite party had appropriated the said amount since a double payment was effected as back on 27.11.98 and the same was necessitated consequent to the detection of the said mistake by the Central Accounts Department. It is observed that the alleged Double Payment had happened on 27.11.98 and it is after 4 ½ years that the opposite party tried to rectify their mistake. It is to be found that as per the banking practice, the opposite party verifies the accounts daily and there can not be any mistake as is deposed by Dw1. He has stated thus:
""DcT :UEHEW^ !d]ta verify [/nTLWta& ?TvUO CX= =8U<TnUC^ *WLEWEkTO `F:a;BUO[=b3TLWta& 5U&5U *J*aGN #*W\yTP endorse [/BbW^ =7^ [*T3WdW\yTP `=\8_*^ E]/bM "KW8UBT7a <O*Wk8a&"
From the above statements, it is clear that the Banks especially the opposite party bank verifies the accounts every day and if mistake has happened, they can find out on the said day itself. Moreover apart from the statement that it was found out by the Central Accounts Department it is not explained as to why they took so much time in detecting a mistake that happened some 4 ½ years back. We are not inclined to accept the lame excuses raised by the opposite party for defending a case built upon untenable grounds. The appeal is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed.
In the result the appeal is dismissed. The order dated. 1.6.2004 of CDRF, Ernakulam in O.P. 512/03 is confirmed. In the facts and circumstances of the present appeal parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.
The office is directed to send back the LCR along with a copy of this order to the Forum below urgently.
S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER
JUSTICE K.R. UDAYABHANU ; PRESIDENT
ST
[ SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR] PRESIDING MEMBER