State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
K.Chandramouli, S/O Krishnamurthy, vs Central Bank Of India, on 27 August, 2009
BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT PUDUCHERRY BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT PUDUCHERRY THURSDAY, the 27th day of August, 2009. First Appeal No.12/2008 K.Chandramouli, S/o Krishnamurthy, No.2, Mangan Street, Reddiarpalayam, Puducherry Appellant Vs. Central Bank of India, Rep. by its Chief Manager, No.21, Rue De Lauristan, Puducherry .... Respondent (On appeal against the order passed by the District Forum, Puducherry in Consumer Complaint No.21 of 2007 dated 12.10.2007) Consumer Complaint No.21 of 2007 K.Chandramouli, S/o Krishnamurthy, No.2, Mangan Street, Reddiarpalayam, Puducherry Complainant Vs. Central Bank of India, Rep. by its Chief Manager, No.21, Rue De Lauristan, Puducherry .... Opposite Party BEFORE: HONBLE JUSTICE THIRU N.V. BALASUBRAMANIAN PRESIDENT TMT. P.V.R. DHANALAKSHMI, MEMBER
FOR THE APPELLANT:
Thiru C.Jagadeesan, Advocate, Puducherry.
FOR THE RESPONDENT:
Thiru M.V.Vaithilingam, Advocate, Puducherry O R D E R This is an appeal filed by the complainant against the order of the District Forum at Puducherry made in Consumer Complaint No.21/2007 dated 12.10.2007 in dismissing the complaint without costs.
2. The brief facts of the case of the complainant are as follows:
The complainant was an employee of M/s Southern Road Carriers Limited, New Delhi and he and his employer contributed to the Employees Provident Fund under Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 in Account No.DL/3932/228. He resigned his job and requested the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, New Delhi to refund the Provident fund due to him and credit the same in the Savings Bank Account No.3995 maintained with the opposite party bank, but the same was not paid within the reasonable time and despite several demands. On issue of lawyers notice to the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, receipt of which was acknowledged on 06.06.2005, the latter sent a reply stating that a cheque for Rs.36,931/- was sent on 07.07.1994 to the opposite party to credit in his S.B. Account No.3995 and advising the complainant to contact the opposite party bank at Puducherry. When approached, the opposite party required him to furnish details of the cheque issued by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner. He furnished the details as cheque No.732419, dt.07.07.1994 for Rs.36,931/- received on 11.07.1994 vide letter No.53/853, dt.08.07.1994 of the E.P.F. Organisation, New Delhi. Then, the opposite party replied that the said cheque was received on 11.07.1994 and sent for collection on 14.07.1994 to State bank of India and the proceeds of the cheque for Rs.36,931/- was received and credited in the complainants S.B. Account No.3995 on 25.07.1994. The opposite party further stated that they were not in a position to furnish the statement of accounts for the period from June, 1994 to December 1994 due to non-availability of the particular record and confirmed that the amount was credited on 25.07.1994 and sent a Xerox copy of the alleged credit advice, dt.14.07.1994 as proof of credit. On 23.01.2006, he wrote to the central office of the opposite party for not crediting the amount, but received a letter on 04.02.2006 that the records were destroyed after eight years. It is clear from the credit voucher dt.14.07.1004 that the amount had not been credited in the account of the complainant on 25.07.1994 and the copy of the credit voucher does not pertain to the date 25.07.1994. No copy of credit voucher for having credited the actual amount and debit voucher for collection charges in the account of the complainant was furnished. If really the opposite party had destroyed the records after eight years, they could not have produced the credit voucher dt.14.07.1994 after a lapse of ten years, i.e. on 30.12.2005. The complainant had lost his passbook. The opposite party is liable to pay the provident fund amount.
3. The opposite party filed the written version with the averments as follows:
The complainant is not a consumer and the alleged dispute is not a consumer dispute within the meaning of the Act. The complaint is barred by limitation. On 25.07.1994 itself a sum of Rs.36,931/- being the proceeds of the cheque received from the Office of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, New Delhi was given credit to S.B. Account No.3995 of the complainant and relevant entries had been made in the passbook of the complainant. By way of reply to the letter dt. 28.12.2005 of the complainant, they had sent a letter dt.30.12.2005 about the details of the said cheque, date of receipt at their end and credit to his S.B. account and also provided a copy of the credit voucher confirming the said credit. As per the Bank policy, ledgers pertaining to accounts are to be preserved only for eight years and so, the ledgers of the accounts pertaining to the year 1994 were destroyed in the year 2003 itself. The complainant could not be provided with copies of ledgers, as they had been destroyed as per bank policy. The date mentioned as 14.07.1994 in the credit voucher is the date of receiving the said cheque and the same was witnessed by the debit voucher dated 25.07.1994 towards the commission of Rs.119/- recovered from the account of the complainant for collection of the said cheque. In the event of pending court cases, the vouchers are preserved for reference even after a lapse of eight years. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and, therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
4. Based on the pleadings of both sides, the District Forum framed the following points for consideration:
1.
Whether the complainant is a consumer and the dispute is a consumer dispute?
2. Whether the complaint is barred by limitation?
3. Whether the opposite party has committed any deficiency in service against the complainant?
4. To what relief the parties are entitled?
5. Before the District Forum, the complainant examined himself as CW1 and exhibited eight documents, viz. Ex.C1 to C8 on his side. The Manager of the opposite party bank examined himself as RW1 and exhibited three documents on its side.
6. On perusing the materials available on record and after hearing the arguments of both parties, the District Forum has held the points No.1 and 2 in favour of the complainant and has held that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and consequently dismissed the complaint without costs. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum in dismissing the complaint on the ground that there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party, the present appeal is directed.
7. The only point that arises for consideration in this appeal is: Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party? If so, to what relief the complainant is entitled?
8. ON THE POINT:
We heard the learned counsel for the appellant/complainant and the learned counsel for the respondent/opposite party. We also perused the records. The appellants sought to produce certain additional evidence to receive additional documents. The respondent has filed a counter stating that as per the bank policy they destroyed the statement of accounts of the complainant. After hearing the counsel for both parties, the petition filed by the complainant was allowed. The respondent also produced certain documents before this Commission.
9. It is the case of the appellant that he was an employee of M/s Southern Road Carrier Ltd., New Delhi and he resigned his job and has filed necessary forms of payment of provident fund due to him under Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Schemes, 1952. He has written letters to the Office of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, New Delhi from 1994 to settle the provident fund amount due to him. He had referred to his Provident Fund Account Also. He has written various letters, dt.09.02.1994, 18.03.1994, 07.04.1994, 28.04.1994 and 28.05.1994 with a copy addressed to the employer. The employer has written a letter on 07.06.1994 stating that he had paid the provident fund deducted amount up to date and settled the matter with the Provident Fund Commissioner. The appellant again wrote a letter through his advocate on 28.06.1994 for settlement of provident fund dues. Again, he wrote a letter on 28.09.1994. Another letter was issued on 26.12.1994. The follow up letters are on 15.07.1995, 13.10.1996, 08.03.1997, 12.08.1999 and 10.03.2001. He again wrote a letter to the employer and the employer has written a letter dated 06.06.2003. The appellant has issued a lawyers notice to Regional Provident Fund Commission, New Delhi on 15.07.2003 to settle the provident fund dues. The appellant wrote a letter again to Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, New Delhi with a copy addressed to the Honble President of India, Honble Leader of Opposition, Honble Speaker of the House on 10.05.2005.
After that the Employees Provident Fund Organisation has informed the appellant by a letter dated 06.06.2005 that the provident fund account was settled on 07.07.1994 and he was advised to contact the bank. He took up the matter again to the respondent bank by letter dt 06.06.2005 with a follow up lawyers notice seeking the bank to furnish a statement of account. Another letter was issued on 19.09.2005 requesting certain particulars from the respondent bank. By a letter dated 30.12.2005, Provident Fund Commissioner the information regarding the cheque and the amount credited in his account were sent to him and the bank enclosed along with the letter the credit advice and also the credit voucher, dt. 14.07.1994 and other documents have been referred to by the District Forum in the order. It is the case of the appellant that the appellant/complainant has misplaced the pass book and it is his case he lost his pass book while shifting his residence. So far as the Bank is concerned, the bank has stated the bankers destroyed the ledger of the year 1994. The evidence has been let in by the Chief Manager of the Puducherry Branch, who has served in this bank for more than 30 years. The case of the bank is that the ledger of the year 1994 was destroyed and the bank has explained and stated that it followed the instructions contained in the Manual of Instruction on General Administration for the destruction of old records. M/s Renuka Agencies was employed by the bank for destruction of old records and they followed the procedure of cutting the papers into shreds in front of the officers of the bank as per the procedure contained in the Manual. He denied the suggestion that old records were handed over to M/s Renuka agencies without cutting the papers into pieces. The counsel for the respondent has also produced the Central Bank of India letters, dated 9th February, 1999, 16th September, 2002 and 9th November 2007 to show M/S Renuka Agencies as an approved firm for disposal of old records. We also gone through the manual of the instruction to the Chief Manager issued by the Central Bank of India. It is the case of the appellant that all the relevant pages of the destruction records were not produced before the District Forum. But, we have gone through the book produced by the Learned Counsel for the respondent.
10. The Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the bank has not followed the procedure regarding the destruction of records and the relevant procedure in the book for the destruction of records were not produced before the District Forum.
11. The Learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the entire book was produced before the District Forum. We are of the view that it is not necessary to go into the question whether the entire book was made available to the District Forum or not as the entire procedure for destruction has been produced before us and Col.8 for destruction of records reads as follows:
Under the head Preservation of Records we have indicated the period upto which particular should be preserved.
At the end of every year, a list of records to be destroyed should be prepared by Records Department and the Branch Manager should scrutinize the list carefully and submit its recommendation to Zonal Office through their respective Regional Office for sanction. No record is to be destroyed until prior approval from the higher authority is obtained. Once the sanction for destruction of records is taken, particulars of records to be destroyed should be entered in the Records Destroyed Register (R.R.D 4) Before destruction, records should be torn into small pieces by shredding machines wherever possible and destroyed by fire in the presence of responsible officer. If permitted by Zonal Office, such records may be sold, to bona fide paper manufacturer after obtaining an undertaking from them to turn the material into pulp at once and not to allow any of the records to pass to other peoples hand. In no case, however, should records, copies of correspondence containing important and confidential matters be sold to any one, not even to bona fide paper manufacturers. Old records in circumstances, be sold to middle man, such as dealers in waste papers, hawkers, etc.
12. Learned Counsel for the respondent also produced before us the Credit voucher-14, dt.25.7.1994 for crediting the amount of Rs.36,931/- and also referred to the debit voucher of Rs.119/- credited to the account of the appellant. The manual instruction indicates period up to which the old records are required to be maintained and the procedure for destruction of records. The Instruction states that the records should be torn into small pieces by shredding machine wherever possible and destroyed by fire in the presence of responsible Officers. The Instruction also contemplates that if permitted by the Zonal Office, such records may be sold to bona fide paper manufacturer after obtaining undertaking from them to torn the material into pulp at once and not to allow any of the records to pass to other peoples hand. The instruction is very clear that the records should not be sold to any one not even to a bona fide paper manufacturer. Old records, in no circumstances, can be sold to middle man, such as dealers in waste papers, hawkers, etc. In these circumstances, it is not very clear how M/s Renuka Waste Paper Agencies was employed by the Zonal Office. The respondent bank is guilty in not following the instruction contained in the Manual of Instruction. We are of the view that the respondent bank was guilty of the breach of the Manual Instructions though it may say that they followed the instruction of Zonal Office contained in the letter of the Zonal Office on 9th February 1999 and the subsequent letters, as the instructions from the Zonal Office vary from Manual on the procedure for destruction of records. Even assuming that the records were destroyed by following the letter of the Zonal office, the question that arises is whether the claimant is entitled for the amount claimed in the complaint. The claimant has resigned from the office. A pensioner, in normal circumstances, would receive the pension payment, interest on deposit, if any, income from house property if any and dividend from the share, if any. The complainant is not a business man having large volume of business for whom the entries both debit and credit would be large and numerous in the book. The claimant would have few transactions with the bank and that would be reflected in the pass book. The appellant from the year 1994 has been writing letters for non receipt of the P.F.amount and he has sent letters to Honble President of India, Honble Opposition Leader and the Honble Speaker of the House and only then it was found in the year 2005 that the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Officer, New Delhi has sent a letter that the amount due to him by way of Provident Fund for Rs.36,931/-was sent to the opposite party bank. If the amount had been credited in his bank account, the appellant as a reasonable man would have noticed the credit for the amount credited in his pass book and would not have written letters after letters from the year 1994 to the various authorities including the Provident Fund Organization. The amount is a substantial amount, particularly in the year 1994 and even now, and if such money has really been credited to his account, it would not have gone unnoticed to the complainant. RW1 states that the appellant is still maintaining the account with the Respondent. We are of the view that the version of the complainant that he lost the pass book is acceptable as the entire correspondence would show that there was a change of address of the complainant and there is a possibility of loss of old pass book due to shifting of his house. The question is whether the case of the appellant has to be believed in the light of stand taken by the Respondent Bank that they destroyed the ledger of the year 1994. There is no doubt that science has progressed in a tremendous way and there is a tremendous development in technology. But, still there is no accurate or reliable and foolproof machine invented by the science to test the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth in a statement made on oath before the Courts of law and acceptable or whether the statement made is tissue of falsehood liable for rejection and the courts of law still have to go by probabilities of the case and judged in that light, we are of the view that the case of the complainant is acceptable as he has been demanding for the money from the year 1994, and as soon as he got the reply from the provident fund organization that the money was sent to the O.P. bank, he approached the O.P. bank. There is also a possibility of the credit to the wrong account holder. The bank records are now destroyed. It is not a claim made after the destruction of the records. He has been demanding the money from the year 1994.
It is also seen that from the copy of credit voucher forwarded by the Bank that the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, New Delhis credit advice was addressed to a wrong address of the appellant to No.21, 3rd Cross Street, VOC Nagar while his correct address is 21-C, 3rd Cross street, VOC Nagar, Puducherry. The appellant came to know of the credit advice only from the letter issued by the bank dt.13.2.2005 when the bank has enclosed a copy of the credit voucher also with its letter. The bank has maintained the credit advice letter, dt.25.06.04 and the voucher dt.25.07.2004 and it is not clear as to why it failed to maintain the ledger of the year 1994 to establish the amount was credited in his account. Since he was a customer of the O.P. bank the claimant would have checked the entries in the pass book and he would have visited the bank several times for banking transactions.
Hence, he could not be blamed for not writing letters to the bank as he had no knowledge that the amount was sent to the bank. If he had knowledge that the amount had been credited in the year 1994 in his account, there would not have been any necessity for him to write letters to various authorities from the year 1994. We are of the view that judged from the standard reasonable man the case of the complainant is probable and acceptable. Since the amount was not credited in his account, he has been writing letters from the year 1994 till he got the reply in the year 2005. Only on 16.6.05, the appellant was advised to contact the bank and then he contacted the O.P. bank. They pleaded that they were unable to produce the ledger. He requested the bank to produce the relevant records but by that time the records were destroyed. The main prayer is for the payment of Rs.36,931/- along with interest. As already held, the case of the complainant is acceptable on the basis of the test of a reasonable person. It is true that there was a failure on his part in not writing a letter to the bank earlier, but the complaint cannot be dismissed on the ground as it is the case of the appellant that he had no knowledge that the amount was credited in his account by the bank. We therefore, hold there is a deficiency of service on the respondent bank in not crediting of Rs.36,931/-to his account.
Accordingly, the appellant is entitled to the sum of Rs.36,931/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from 2.3.2006 till the date of payment as claimed by the appellant. So far as compensation for mental agony and sufferings of the appellant is concerned, we are of the view that the appellant had suffered mental agony for a period of more than 12 years till he got a reply from the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner that the provident fund amount was sent to the O.P. bank in 1994. Since he suffered mental pain and sufferings for a period of more than a decade due to the action or inaction of the opposite party bank, considering that the bank is a public sector bank, the appellant is entitled to a sum of Rs.10,000 for mental agony. The point is answered accordingly.
13. In the result, the appeal stands allowed. The respondent/O.P. is directed to pay to the appellant a sum of Rs.36,931/- (Rupees Thirty-Six Thousand Nine-Hundred and Thirty-One only) along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from 02.03.2006 till the date of payment; a sum of Rs.10,000 (Rupees Ten Thousand only) for mental agony and a cost of Rs.2,000/-(Rupees Two-Thousand only).
Dated this the 27th day of August, 2009 (N.V.BALASUBRAMANIAN) PRESIDENT (P.V.R.DHANALAKSHMI) MEMBER