State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Brij Lal Sankhyan vs Prabhu Chander Bhandari on 14 June, 2012
BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SOLAN, H H.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SHIMLA. First Appeal No: 76/2012. Date of Decision: 14.06.2012. Brij Lal Sankhyan, C/O Durga Provision Store, Near Shiv Temple Sangti, P.O. Summer Hill, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh-171005. Appellant. Versus Prabhu Chander Bhandari, Chief Manager, UTI Mutual Fund, Bell Villa, The Mall, Shimla, H.P.171001. Respondent Coram Honble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, President Honble Mr. Chander Shekhar Sharma, Member Honble Mrs. Prem Chauhan, Member. Whether approved for reporting?[1] Yes. For the Appellant: In person. For the Respondent: Mr. Rajesh Kashyap, Advocate. O R D E R:
Justice Surjit Singh, President (Oral) Appellant is aggrieved by the order dated 05.03.2012, of learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Shimla, whereby his complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which he filed against the respondent stands dismissed.
2. Appellant filed a complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the respondent alleging that he had invested money in UTI mutual fund against the following nine folios:-
i) 55917464952
ii) 55940114584
iii) 55940114605
iv) 15921745666
v) 55940114595
vi) 15921745676
vii) 517199020911
viii) 15921745655
ix) 517197584571
3. He pleaded that when he obtained fresh statements of account pertaining to the aforesaid folios in May, 2009 and verified the entries in those statements of account, it was found that though net redemption amounts were shown to have been paid on 09.10.2007, actually no cheques for the redemption amount(s) in respect of the said folios had been issued to him in the year 2007. According to him, the total amount of redemption amount(s) of the aforesaid folios worked out to `4,10,593.50, as per detail given below:-
Sr. No. Folio Nos. Amount.
i) 55917464952 `67,782.61
ii) 55940114584 `62,076.92
iii) 55940114605 `61,203.56
iv) 15921745666 `43,444.70
v) 55940114595 `35,910.00
vi) 15921745676 `25,656.78
vii) 517199020911 `25,562.90
viii) 15921745655 `21,419.76
ix) 517197584571 `75,536.27
4. He, therefore, filed a complaint seeking issuance of a direction to the respondent to pay the aforesaid amount of `4,10,593.50 and also to pay interest on the said amounts of money at the rate of 18%, per annum, the amount of which he calculated at `1,43,707.72 and also sought damages to the tune of `1.00 lac.
5. Respondent contested the complaint and pleaded that redemption amount due in respect of the aforesaid four folios, as indicated in the complaint, stood credited in the accounts of the appellant with UCO Bank and State Bank of India.
6. Learned District Forum has dismissed the complaint holding that the affidavit filed by Shri P.C. Bhandari, Branch Manager of respondent No.2, wherein details of bank accounts of the appellant and the amount(s) credited in those accounts are given, has remained uncontroverted by the appellant and that he withheld the best evidence, available with him in the form of his passbooks pertaining to bank accounts of UCO Bank and State Bank of India. Appellant is aggrieved by the order of dismissal of his complaint and has preferred the present appeal.
7. In the grounds of appeal, besides alleging that the money due against the aforesaid nine folios, on account of redemption amount(s) in October, 2007, had not been paid to him, he alleges that there was deficiency in deposit of money against two other folios and the total amount of deficient deposits, in those two folios, works out to `1,80,609.89. By adding up all the amount(s) of his claim, i.e. originally pleaded in the complaint and the deficient payments of two other folios and interest etc., he has claimed a sum of `13,18,095.55, in the present appeal. He has also moved an application for taking into consideration entries in his passbooks, pertaining to bank accounts with UCO Bank and State Bank of India, photo copies of which, he has placed on record of this appeal, as Annexures 12, 13 & 14 (in respect of UCO Bank) and Annexures 15 to 19 (in respect of State Bank of India).
8. We have heard the appellant, who appears in person, as also learned counsel representing the respondent and gone through the entire record, including the copies of passbooks submitted by the appellant before us, as also the original passbooks, which he is carrying with him.
9. As per affidavit of Shri P.C. Bhandari, Branch Manager of respondent No.2, which was filed before the learned District Forum, against three folios, i.e. 15921745666, 15921745676 & 517199020911, money had been deposited in UCO Bank. We have seen the passbooks pertaining to UCO Bank as produced by the appellant, as also its photocopy Annexure 14. There are two entries dated 24.10.2007, in this passbook pertaining to deposit of two amount(s), i.e. `25,562.90 & `69,101.66. In the affidavit of Shri P.C. Bhandari, referred to hereinabove, it is testified that the money against three folios was worked out & documents prepared on 09.10.2007 & deposits were made on 24.10.2007, in the UCO Bank Account No.3025 of the appellant. Annexure 14 pertains to account No.3025, with UCO Bank. As per aforesaid affidavit of Shri P.C. Bhandari, amount(s) deposited in UCO Bank were `25,562.90 and `69,101.66. Aggregate amount of folio Nos. 15921745666 & 15921745676 works out to `69,101.66. Amount due on the third folio, i.e. 517199020911, is shown to be `25,562.90 and there is a separate entry of this amount in the aforesaid passbooks, copy Annexure 12. In the affidavit of Shri P.C. Bhandari, there is reference to this amount also.
10. As regards net redemption amount of remaining six folios, according to the affidavit of Shri P.C. Bhandari, the aforesaid amount(s) were deposited in saving bank account No.10091450006 of the appellant with the State Bank of India. Appellant has shown us four passbooks pertaining to different periods in respect of the aforesaid saving bank account. None of these four passbooks contain entries of 24.10.2007. Copy of saving bank account with the State Bank of India, which has been placed on the record of the appeal by the appellant, i.e. Annexures 15 to 19, also does not have the entries dated 24.10.2007, copy pertaining to the entries from 25.10.2007 onwards.
11. We have specifically questioned the appellant with regard to the passbook pertaining to the date 24.10.2007. He says that he has many more passbooks at home and that in fact, he has a heap of papers, pertaining to his dealings with UTI at him. Withholding of the entries in his saving bank account with State Bank of India, for the period prior to 25.10.2007, renders the appellant liable to an adverse inference that had he produced the passbook pertaining to the period prior to 25.10.2007, the same would have falsified his claim with respect to these folios, the net redemption amount(s) of which for the year 2007 are testified by Shri P.C. Bhandari in his affidavit to have been credited in his saving bank account with State Bank of India.
12. As regards additional claim, raised in the appeal, with regard to two other folios, in respect of which money deposited was allegedly short by `1,80,609.89, suffice it to say that this allegation being not part of the complaint and thus the respondent having had no opportunity to controvert the same, it cannot be looked into having been raised for the first time in appeal.
13. From the above discussion, it is absolutely clear that the claim made by the appellant in the complaint is false. Initially we were thinking that the appellant, on account of old age, might have been labouring under some wrong impression and there might not have been any malafide intention on his part to make the claim, but from his conduct in withholding the passbook of State Bank of India, containing entries prior to 25.10.2007, (when the case of the respondent is that money against six folios was deposited in his account with the State Bank of India on 24.10.2007), shows that he has deliberately made a false claim and is withholding his own documents, which impliedly disprove his claim. Complaint, thus, is false and frivolous to his knowledge. We, therefore, dismiss his appeal with costs of `10,000/-, which the respondent may deduct from the benefit payable to the appellant, on future income from his investment with them. Original passbooks have been returned to the appellant.
14. One copy of this order be sent to each of the parties, free of cost, as per Rules.
(Justice Surjit Singh) President (Chander Shekhar Sharma) Member (Prem Chauhan) Member June 14, 2012.
N Mehta) [1] Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the order?