State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sri.Om Hedge Urtota, vs The Seniour Branch Manager. on 18 July, 2023
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION BASAVA BHAVAN, BANGALORE. First Appeal No. A/837/2015 ( Date of Filing : 11 Sep 2015 ) (Arisen out of Order Dated 12/08/2015 in Case No. Complaint Case No. CC/161/2015 of District Dharwad) 1. Sri.Om Hedge.Urtota, No439, 4th main road, Nagendra Block, Srinagar, Bangalore-50. ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. The Seniour Branch Manager. Syndicate Bank, Vidyanagar Division, Hubli-58021. ...........Respondent(s) First Appeal No. A/838/2015 ( Date of Filing : 11 Sep 2015 ) (Arisen out of Order Dated 12/08/2015 in Case No. Complaint Case No. CC/161/2015 of District Dharwad) 1. Sri.Om Hedge Urthot. No439, 4th main road, Nagendra Block, Srinagar, Bangalore-50. ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. The Seniour Branch Manager Syndicate Bank, Super Market Division, Hubbli-580028. ...........Respondent(s) First Appeal No. A/839/2015 ( Date of Filing : 11 Sep 2015 ) (Arisen out of Order Dated 12/08/2015 in Case No. Complaint Case No. CC/246/2015 of District Dharwad) 1. Sri.Om Hedge Urthot, No439, 4th main road, Nagendra Block, Srinagar, Bangalore-50. ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. The Seniour Branch Manager, Syndicate Bank, Subash Road, Dharwad, ...........Respondent(s) First Appeal No. A/840/2015 ( Date of Filing : 11 Sep 2015 ) (Arisen out of Order Dated 12/08/2015 in Case No. Complaint Case No. CC/159/2015 of District Dharwad) 1. Sri.Om Hedge Urtota, No439, 4th main road, Nagendra Block, Srinagar, Bangalore-50. ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. The Seniour Branch Manager. Syndicate Bank, Nehrunagar Branch, Gokul Road, Hubli-580030. ...........Respondent(s) First Appeal No. A/841/2015 ( Date of Filing : 11 Sep 2015 ) (Arisen out of Order Dated 12/08/2015 in Case No. Complaint Case No. CC/245/2015 of District Dharwad) 1. Sri.OmHedge Oorutota, No.439,4th Main Road, Nagendra Block. Srinagar, Bangalore-560050. ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. The Branch Manager Syndicate Bank, Vidyagiri Division, Vidyagiri Dharwad 580004. ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. Ravishankar PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MRS. Smt.Sunita Channabasappa Bagewadi MEMBER PRESENT: Dated : 18 Jul 2023 Final Order / Judgement BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE (ADDL. BENCH) DATED THIS THE 18th DAY OF JULY 2023 PRESENT MR. RAVISHANKAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER MRS. SUNITA CHANNABASAPPA BAGEWADI : MEMBER APPEAL NOs. 837/2015 to 841/2015 Sri Om Hegde Uratota, No.439, 4th Main Road, Nagendra Block, Srinagar, Bangalore 560 050. (In person) Appellant is same in all the appeals ......Appellant/s V/s APPEAL NO.837/2015 The Senior Branch Manager, Canara Bank, Vidya Nagar, Hubli - 21. ...... Respondent/s APPEAL NO. 838/2015 The Senior Branch Manager, Canara Bank, Super Market Division, Hubbali - 580 028. ...... Respondent/s APPEAL NO. 839/2015 The Senior Branch Manager, Canara Bank, Subhash Road, Dharawad. ...... Respondent/s APPEAL NO. 840/2015 The Senior Branch Manager, Canara Bank, Nehrunagar Branch, Gokul Road, Hubli - 580 030. ...... Respondent/s APPEAL NO. 841/2015 The Branch Manager, Canara Bank, Vidyagiri, Dharwad 580 004. (By Sri M.R. Manoj Kumar, Advocate in all the cases) ...... Respondent/s COMMON ORDER
MRS. SUNITA CHANNABASAPPA BAGEWADI, MEMBER
1. The appellant/complainant has preferred all these appeals being aggrieved by the Order dt.12.08.2015 passed in CC.Nos.160/2015, 161/2015, 246/2015, 159/2015 and 245/2015 on the file District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Dharwad. The appellant in these appeals is one and the same and the matter in issue is also one and the same. Hence, all these appeals are clubbed together and being disposed-of by this Common Order.
2. The brief facts of the complaint is hereunder;
It is the case of the complainant that he approached the different branches of Opposite Party Bank on different dates and availed services to issue DD payable to his wife Smt. Saroja Hegde for the amount. During that time, the Opposite Party/s had collected excess amount against the scheduled rates towards the commission charges. They have received excess amount against the scheduled prescribed commission and have committed deficiency in service amounting to unfair trade practice and caused harassment, mental agony and financial loss. Hence, the complaints.
3. After service of notice, the respondent/s appeared before the District Commission through counsel and filed version by denying the averments made in the complaints. Further contended that though the complainant is permanent resident of Bangalore at given address of cause title and though he is owning SB account of respondent at Sirsi Branch, the complainant for the best reasons known to him submits his request for issuance of DD through respondent branches in the name of his wife in all the cases by filling the DD forms in his own handwriting and pattern and remitted the commission amount more than that of the prescribed commission fee against no one staff of respondent branches insist to fill up the same and remit the excess amount at his own whims and fancies and for himself made the cashier to receive the amount and remitted excess DD charges with malafide intention to make grounds for false claim and filed the instant complaint against the respondents as a revenge for the reasons respondent bank had obtained decree in O.S.No.45/2015 on the file of Civil Judge, Sirsi Court against the daughter of the complainant. Still the decree amount is in due. Hence, complainant filed all these complaints with malafide intention. The respondents have not committed any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice as alleged by the complainant and prayed for dismissal of the complaints.
4. After trial, the District Commission partly allowed CC.Nos.159/2015, 160/2015 and 161/2015 by directing the respondents to pay Rs.1,000/- as compensation and Rs.1,000/- as costs of litigation and dismissed the CC.Nos. 245/2015 and 246/2015 with a direction to both parties with regard to modus operendi and to put an end for spurious complaints with a specific direction to the respondent bank to diligently act and to respond with the consumers. Aggrieved by the said Orders, the appellant/ complainant is in appeal. Heard the arguments.
5. Perused the appeal memo, Order passed by the District Commission and material on record, we noticed that it is not in dispute that the appellant had applied for DDs in different branches of respondent bank and the respondent bank has issued DDs in favour of appellant's wife as per requisition of the appellant. The allegation of the appellant in all the cases is that the respondent have received excess amount against the scheduled prescribed commission and also not returned the excess amount at an early stage, but, remitted it after issuance of legal notice which is deficiency in service on the part of the respondents bank. Per contra, the respondents bank contended that the appellant himself remitted the excess amount to make ground for false claim. No any officials have insisted the appellant for the same. The respondents have remitted the excess amount of DD commission belatedly with a malafide intention for the reasons the respondents bank has obtained decree in OS.No.45/2015 on the file of Civil Judge, Sirsi Court against the daughter of the appellant.
6. Perused the Order passed by the District Commission. We noticed that the District Commission allowed the CC.Nos. 159, 160 & 161/2015 and dismissed CC.Nos.245 & 246/2015. In CC.Nos. 159, 160 & 161/2015, the District Commission hold that "if the appellant/complainant would have make this complaints with sole intention to create awareness in consumers, he would have made one transaction, but, he has made repetition in different branches of respondents bank". However when the appellant paid the excess amount for DDs, why the respondent bank not noticed the same to refund the amount immediately on the counter itself. Hence, there was a deficiency in service on the part of the respondents even though it was an intention of the appellant and allowed the complaints for public awareness, and dismissed the CC.Nos. 245 & 246/2015 with a direction to both parties with regard to modus operendi and to put an end for spurious complaints with a specific direction to the respondent bank to diligently act and to respond with the consumers.
7. We agree with the Order passed by the District Commission because if the sole intention of the appellant is to create awareness in consumers, it is not necessary to the appellant to sought information three times under RTI Act. Moreover, the appellant has himself filled the DD form and paid an excess amount. There is no allegation of the appellant that the officials of the respondents bank have demanded excess commission amount even though we assumed that the appellant has intentionally paid the excess commission for DDs as revenge, why the respondents bank accepted the same without noticing. It is the duty of the bank officials to count the same and then issue the DDs. But, in the present case, the officials of the respondents bank accepted the excess commission which was paid by the appellant without noticing that it was excess amount than the scheduled charges. The respondents bank contended that since the appellant himself at his own whims remitted the excess DD commission at the counter and the concerned case worker of the respondents bank in busy schedule of transaction has not noticed the same and accepted the form. We are not believe the contention of the respondents bank because if the consumers have remitted less commission charges than the scheduled charges, would the bank have accepted the same and issue the DDs? The banks cannot accept the less charge. In the present case, the respondents bank accepted the excess DD commission amount from the appellant. If the bank remitted the same to the appellant on counter itself, there is no question arises for deficiency in service on the part of the respondents bank, but, it was remitted only after issuance of legal notice by the appellant. Hence, it is a deficiency in service on the part of the respondents bank. However, at the same time, the appellant also knowing to repeat the same conduct in different branches of respondents bank also no need of applying three times to sought information under RTI Act. It is an intention to create awareness in consumers would apply once, it would survive his purpose. Hence, considering the facts and discussion made here, we are of the opinion that the Order passed by the District Commission is in all cases is just and proper. No interference is required. Hence, the following;
ORDER The Appeal Nos.837/2015 to 841/2015 are dismissed.
Keep the original copy of the order in Appeal No.837/2015 and the copy of the same in other connected cases.
Forward free copies to both the parties.
Sd/- Sd/- MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER KCS* [HON'BLE MR. Ravishankar] PRESIDING MEMBER [HON'BLE MRS. Smt.Sunita Channabasappa Bagewadi] MEMBER