State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Branch Manager, State Bank Of India vs V.Raja on 28 November, 2023
IN THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI.
Present: Hon'ble THIRU JUSTICE R. SUBBIAH : PRESIDENT
F.A. No. 1012 of 2023
[Against the order passed in C.C. No.29 of 2019 dated 10.08.2022
on the file of DCDRC, Vellore].
Tuesday, the 28th day of November 2023
The Branch Manager
State Bank of India
Ranipet Branch
M.R. Puram, Ranipet-632406
Walaja Taluk, Vellore District. .. Appellant/
st
1 Opposite party
Vs.
1. V. Raja
S/o. Vadivel
2. R. Angalam
W/o.V. Raja
Both residing at
87, Thiruvalluvar Nagar
Nellikuppam Mottur
Walaja Taluk,
Vellore District. .. 1st & 2nd Respondents/
Complainants 1 & 2
3. The Post Master
Post Office, Ranipet
Walaja Taluk, Vellore District.
4. J. Narayanan
Postman, Lalapet Branch
Walaja Taluk, Vellore District.
2
5. V. Raja
S/o. Varadharajan
Periyatheru (big street)
Nellikuppam Mottur
Walaja Taluk, Vellore District. ..Respondents 3 to 5/
Opposite Parties 2 to 4
Counsel for the Appellant/
Opposite party No.1 : M/s. S. Makesh
Counsel for Respondents 1 &2/
Complainants : M/s.R.T. Sundari
Counsel for Respondents 3 &4/
Opposite Parties 2 &3 : M/s.K.Subbu Ranga Bharathi
The 1st and 2nd Respondents, as Complainants have filed
a complaint before the District Commission against the opposite
parties praying for certain directions. The District Commission had
passed an ex-parte order and allowed the complaint, in part.
Against the said ex-parte order, this appeal is preferred by the 1st
opposite party, praying to set aside the order of the District
Commission, Vellore at Vellore District dated 10.08.2022 in C.C.
No.29 of 2019.
This appeal came before me for final hearing today, on
28.11.2023. Upon hearing the arguments of the learned counsel
appearing for the appellant, perusing the documents, lower court
records and the order passed by the District Commission, this
Commission made the following order in the open court.
3
ORDER
THIRU.R.SUBBIAH, PRESIDENT(Open court) The 1st opposite party before the District Commission is the appellant herein.
2. The case of the complainant before the District Commission is that the 1st complainant is serving in Military. The 2nd complainant is the wife of the 1st complainant. They opened a joint Account with the 1st opposite party, in the year 2014. They also availed ATM Card in the name of the 1 st complainant and their Account Number is 34196123640. Every month the 1st complainant used to deposit money and as on 01.02.2019 the accrued balance was Rs.2,25,183/-. The 1st opposite party Bank deactivated the old ATM card and sent new EMV chip ATM card to the complainant through post. The 3 rd opposite party delivered the ATM card to the 4th opposite party address, who is having the same name of the complainant. Though the 4th opposite party belongs to the same village, he resides in a different street, having the same name of the 1st complainant. On receiving the new ATM card, the 4th opposite party went to the 1st opposite party Bank and had given his phone number to the complainant's account. The 1st opposite party, again 4 without verifying the photos or any records, had given the ATM pin number to the 4th opposite party. Thereafter, the 4th opposite party had withdrawn a total sum of Rs.1,90,000/- from the complainants' account on various dates. On 20.03.2019, when the complainant visited the bank to withdraw a sum of Rs.3000/- he was shocked to note that a sum of Rs.1,90,000/- has been withdrawn from his account. On enquiry, the 1st opposite party informed about issuance of new ATM card to the 4th opposite party address. Thereafter, the complainant came to know that the 4 th opposite party had falsely given his phone number to the complainant's account, obtained the pin number and had withdrawn the money from his account. Hence, the complainant gave a complaint to the 1st opposite party Bank and the 2nd opposite party Post Office. But, no steps were taken by the opposite parties to recover the money of the complainants. Hence, the complainants lodged a complaint before the SIPCOT Police Station and FIR No.160/2019 was registered under Section 294(b), 417, 506(1) IPC against the 4th opposite party. The complainant also issued lawyer's notice to all the opposite parties, on 09.06.2019. The opposite parties No.2 & 3 had sent reply notice dated 10.06.2019 and 12.06.2019 respectively, admitting their negligence of services. Therefore, alleging deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties, 5 the complainant has filed a complaint to direct the opposite parties 1 to 3, to deposit a sum of Rs.1,90,000/- which was withdrawn by 4th opposite party due to negligence of service, to pay a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and stress caused to the complainant due to gross deficiency in service and unfair trade practice of the opposite parties and to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards litigation expenses.
3. Though notice was served on the opposite parties, the 1st opposite party failed to appear before the District Commission and was set ex-parte on 09.01.2020. Though opposite parties No. 2, 3, and 4 appeared, they did not file their written version inspite of sufficient opportunities given and hence the opposite parties 2, 3 and 4 were set ex-parte on 25.05.2022. Consequently, the District Commission passed an ex-parte order allowing the complaint in part and directing the opposite parties 1 & 4 to pay a sum of Rs.1,90,000/- with interest at 8% p.a. from the date of the complaint till the date of the order and to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation towards deficiency in service and mental agony and also to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards cost of the complaint. Further, the District Commission has directed the opposite parties to pay the said amount within one month from the 6 date of the order, failing which the said amount shall carry an interest at the rate of 9% p.a., from the date of the order till the date of realization. The complaint is dismissed as against the opposite parties 2 to 3.
4. Aggrieved over the said order, this appeal is preferred by the 1st opposite party, praying for setting aside the order of the District Commission and for a chance to contest the case on merits.
5. Before this Commission, the counsel for the appellant/1st opposite party submitted that the District Commission has failed to consider the admitted fact that the bank has not committed any mistake and only the 3rd to 5th opposite parties have committed the mistake. At the time of notice from the District Commission, it was a Corona period and hence the Bank officials could not be present or engage any authorised representative on behalf of them to contest the case. Hence, the non-appearance of the Bank before the District Commission was neither willful nor wanton. Hence, the appellant/1st opposite party prayed this Commission to set aside the order of the District Commission and afford them an opportunity to contest the case on merits. 7
6. When the case came up before this Commission on 21.11.2023, after hearing the submission of the appellant, this Commission felt that there is some force in the arguments of the counsel for the appellant/ 1st opposite party and therefore, in order to give a chance to the appellant/1st opposite party, to agitate their right on merits, was inclined to allow this appeal by remanding the matter to the District Commission, to dispose of the case on merit. However, considering the lethargic attitude of the 1st opposite party in not appearing before the District Commission, this Commission imposed a cost of Rs.3,000/- to be paid to the Legal Aid Account of the State Commission. Today, when the matter appeared in the list it was reported that the condition imposed by this Commission has been complied with. Since the condition imposed by this Commission has been complied with, the appeal is allowed by remanding the complaint to the District Commission for fresh disposal according to law.
In the result, the appeal is allowed by setting aside the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Vellore in C.C. No.29/2019 dt.10.08.2022 and the matter is remanded back to the District Consumer 8 Commission, Vellore for fresh disposal according to law and on merits.
The District Commission is directed to issue notice to all the parties for their appearance and on such appearance, directed to proceed with the case and dispose the same within three months according to law and on merits.
The amount deposited by the appellant / 1st opposite party shall remain in the custody of this Commission, till the disposal of the original complaint.
R. SUBBIAH PRESIDENT Index : Yes/ No AVR/SCDRC/Chennai/Orders/November/2023