State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S. Sami Arul Educational ... vs The Regional Manager, Regional Office ... on 5 July, 2013
IN THE TAMIL NADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, MADURAI BENCH.
Present: Thiru.A.K.. ANNAMALAI, M.A. M.L., M.Phil., Presiding Judicial Member
Thiru.S. SAMBANDAM, Member
C.C.No.2/2012
(C.C..No.3/2007 on the file of State Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission, Chennai.)
Date of Complaint: 28.12.2006
Date of Order : 05.07.2013
M/s. Sami Arul Educational Trust,
Represented by its Managing Trustee
Mr.L.B.S. Yadhav,
No.199/1 P. Vallam,
Pillaiyarpatti Road,
Thanjavur District. Complainant
Vs
1. The Regional Manager,
Regional Office of Dena Bank,
No.32, Venkatesh Street, T. Nagar,
Chennai - 600 017.
2. The Manager,
Dena Bank, Thanjavur Branch,
84, Gandhiji Road,
Thanjavur.
3. The Chairman,
Dena Bank,
Dena Corporate Centre, C-10, ' G ' Block
Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East,
Mumbai - 52. Opposite Parties
Counsel for Complainant: Mr. S.Anantha Narayanan, Advocate.
For opposite parties 1 & 2: Mr.V. Maharajan, Advocate.
For 3rd opposite party : Exparte
2
This complaint coming before us for final hearing on 20.06.2013 and on
hearing the arguments of the both sides and upon perusing the material records
this Commission made the following:
ORDER
Thiru. A.K. ANNAMALAI, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER.
1. Complaint filled under section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
2. The complainant filed a complaint against the opposite parties claiming a sum of Rs.20,81,842/- as compensation for the wrong transfer of funds, interest on the funds, compensation for mental agony and costs of proceedings etc., against the opposite parties.
3. The gist of the case of the complainant in brief as follows: The complainant being the Educational Trust represented by its Managing Trustee, L.B.S. Yadhav, running a college under the name and style of S.A. College of Arts and Science. Originally, one Dr.S. Peter who was the Managing Trustee is holding the post of Chairman and other trustees are P.Santhana Mary, P. Elizebeth Rani, P. Chistiana Kasturibai, S.M. Bakkiaraj, Sebestian Amalanathan and P. Josepin Rosy. As per the meeting convened on 03.09.2005, the present Managing Trustee, Mr. L.B.S. Yadhav, S.M. Yadhav, Durairaj Devei Yadhav and Geetha Yadhav were inducted as Trustees and on 12.09.2005 Dr.S. Peter along with his family members resigned from the trusteeship with effect from 17.09.2005 and thereby the opposite parties 1 and 2 have been duly intimated regarding the change of trusteeship and other details. The Board authorized 3 Dr.S.Peter to issue necessary cheques to the loan creditors to the extent of Rs.99.82 lakhs as on the date on 12.09.2005 and the cheques were issued accordingly. The opposite parties have been instructed by the Trust that except the present Managing Trustee others have no authority to transact the business with the bank after 17.09.2005. But, Dr.S. Peter was allowed to operate the account without the knowledge of the Trust and also a sum of Rs.6,93,400/- was withdrawn by him on 17.09.2005. Further, a sum of Rs.25,39,000/- with interest of Rs.1,32,572/- of T. Nagar Branch 1st opposite party were transferred to the complainant account at Thanjavur Branch on 31.12.2005 by the 2nd opposite party without the knowledge of the Trust and also collected a sum of Rs.870/- as transfer interest on funds which was effected for closing OD Account of Dr.S. Peter with conspiracy of Dr.S.Peter, 2nd opposite party and the erstwhile Managing Trustee at the instance of the 1st opposite party and thereby there was loss of Rs.25,39,000/- with interest due to deliberate act of the opposite parties 1 and 2 and violated the instructions in order to make wrongful gain by Dr.S. Peter and thereby legal notices were issued to the opposite parties on 08.04.2006 and 20.04.2006. But wrong reply was received and thereby the complainant filed a consumer complaint claiming the above reliefs, in all for Rs.20,81,842/-.
2. The opposite parties 1 and 2 have filed separate written versions denying the allegations of the complainant and contended that there was no deficiency in service or negligence on their part and the transactions were all 4 made in accordance with the rules and procedures and as per the Trust resolution Dr.S. Peter was authorized to issue cheques to the creditors on 15.09.2005 which was subsequently encashed by the creditors. The newly constituted Board of Trustees has executed the documents in favour of the bank on 22.09.2005 holding them liable for the amount outstanding in the OD account. Since there was some dispute between the present trustee and the previous trustees the opposite parties are unnecessarily dragged by institution of the frivolous proceedings. Transfer of funds relating to T.Nagar Branch was by mistake to the account of the 1st opposite party account was detected and the mistake was immediately rectified at once. It can be rectified by bank which requires no authority from the complainant. Hence the complaint to be dismissed.
3. The 3rd opposite party after receiving the notice did not appear before this Commission and thereby he was set exparte on 14.06.2011.
4. On enquiry, the complainant and the opposite parties 1 and 2 have filed their proof affidavit and on the side of the complainant, documents Ex A1 to A7 were marked. No document was filed on the side of the opposite parties 1 and 2.
5. Points for consideration are (1) Whether the opposite parties are in deficiency in service in their banking service regarding the transactions related to the complainant's account during the alleged period?
5
(2) Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs as prayed for in the complaint?
(3) To what relief the complainant is entitled to?
6. Points No. 1 to 3: In this complaint enquiry, the complainant being the Managing Trustee of the Educational Trust alleged that subsequent to the change of Management in the Trusteeship in spite of specific directions given to the opposite parties not to allow the transactions of one Dr.S. Peter, erstwhile trustee and Managing Trustee in spite of that the opposite parties erroneously transferred a sum of Rs.25,39,000/- with interest of Rs.1,32,572/- on 3112.2005 from T. Nagar Branch to Thanjavur Branch and at the instance of erstwhile trustee Dr.S. Peter's account on 02.01.2006, the 2nd opposite party allowed the transfer from Thanjavur to T. Nagar Branch and equally a sum of Rs.25,39,000/- and further sum of Rs.6,95,400/- were taken by the erstwhile trustee Dr.S. Peter on 17.09.2005 after his retirement from trusteeship without the knowledge of the present trustee and Managing Director and in spite of instruction given to the bank in this regard intimating change of management and trusteeship and thereby there was conspiracy between the 1st opposite party and Dr.S. Peter and deficiency in service by the opposite parties. Whereas the opposite parties 1 and 2 contended that The Trust have executed necessary documents to the bank authorities by the present Managing Trustee with the knowledge of the present Managing Director L.B.S. Yadhav stating that they would take responsibility of the transactions with the bank and also even as per their resolution the erstwhile 6 trustee Dr.S. Peter was authorized to issue cheques to the creditors relating to the dispersement of Rs.6,93,000/-which were all subsequently withdrawn by concerned parties and thereby there was no deficiency in service by the bank. As far as the transfer of account relating to Rs.25,39,000/- from T. Nagar Branch to Thanjavur Branch and subsequently rectified by re-transferring the amount from Thanjavur Branch to T. Nagar Branch as the mistake was committed by the bank which was subsequently rectified for which there is no need for any authorization from the complainant. While considering both sides contentions, averments, arguments, and on perusal of the documents filed by the complainant, we find that the complainants have not filed any documents relating to the communication of change of trusteeship and specific instructions debarring Dr.S.Peter, erstwhile trustee from operating bank transactions and from which date it came into effect are all not exposed by relevant documents by the complainant and as far as the documents already filed are concerned Ex A1 is the proceedings of the trust inducting Mr.L.B.S. Yadhav and other trustees dated 03.09.2005 with effect from 03.09.2005 and under Ex A2 dated 12.09.2005 the resignation of Dr.S. Peter, the Managing Director was accepted in which the present Managing Trustee authorized to give Rs.99.82 lakhs as loan to repaying the existing loan creditors for which the trust authorized Dr.S. Peter to take necessary steps for the same and cheques he had issued to the loan creditors and the banks are authorized to honour the cheques when they were presented for payment and the same can be intimated to the bank and Dr.S. 7 Peter is authorized to inform the same to the bank. Under Ex A3, the resolution passed to accept the resignation of Dr.S. Peter and other trustees with effect from 15.09.2005 and also to inform the same to the bankers and other charges through the present Managing Trustee Mr.L.B.S. Yadhav. Under Ex A4, statement of account relating to the bank transactions from 02.04.2005 to 01.03.2006 and Ex A5 is the resignation letter given by Dr.S. Peter, informing the resignation with effect from 15.09.2005. Ex A6 is the legal notice sent by the Trust to the erstwhile trustee Dr.S. Peter alleging the illegal transactions and claim to refund of the amount utilized. Ex A7 is the reply notice given by Dr.S. Peter explaining the circumstances and reasons for the alleged transactions.
7. We have carefully considered those documents and there were no documents to prove that the proceedings under Exhibits A1 to A4 and the letter under Ex A5 dated 15.09.2005 are communicated to the opposite parties 1 and 2 and even as per Exhibits A1 and A2, Dr.S. Peter was authorized to issue cheques to the loan creditors and authorized to inform the same to the bank and thereby those cheques were presented after 15.09.2005 as and when presented for encashment by the creditors cannot be considered as deficiency in service while those cheques were honoured since it is the duty of the bank to honour those cheques which are otherwise in order for which Dr.S. Peter was authorized to issue as on 15.09.2005 and Dr.S. Peter ceased to be Managing Trustee and the Trustee after 15.09.2005. In the reply notice, Ex A7, dated 03.05.2006, the erstwhile trustee Dr.S. Peter, alleges certain dues payable by the present Trust 8 to pay balance amount of Rs.69,18,000/- and in order to avoid such liability alleging or leveling certain allegations against the complainant which are all to be proved by way of proper enquiry and evidence for which the District Forum is not the proper Forum. Regarding the transactions relating to the transfer of Rs.25,39,000/-with interest of Rs.1,32,572/- from T. Nagar Branch to Thanjavur Branch and subsequently it was re-transferred from Thanjavur to T. Nagar Branch . The opposite parties 1 and 2 contended that the transfer was made by mistake by the bank and since it was found out and rectified by re-transferring the amount with interest for which there is no need for any authorization from the complainant and those contentions were not disputed by the complainant by way of any documentary evidence except the statement of account under Ex A4 from which only details of transactions alone could be seen. Further, the newly formed Trust executed documents to the bank only on 22.09.2005 and till that date the transactions by the erstwhile trustees how become invalid or irregular not explained. In those circumstances, as pointed out by the opposite parties 1 and 2 in their written version since there is an internal dispute between erstwhile trustee and newly formed trust, the complaint came to be filed which cannot be brushed aside in view of the exchange of legal notices under Exhibits A6 and A7 and from their averments and from the recitals in the notices between the parties, the present Managing Trustee and the resigned trustee Dr.S. Peter. Further, the opposite parties stated that they are initiating proper recovery proceedings for the recovery of amounts due under the over draft facilities 9 granted to the trust which may also be the cause for filing the complaint in order to avoid liabilities by the concerned trustee. In those circumstances, we are of the view that the complainant has not come forward to prove the deficiency in service of the opposite parties 1 and 2 regarding the bank transactions relating to the complainant trust by their trustees in a acceptable and agreeable manner through necessary documentary evidence and thereby the complaint is failed which is to be dismissed as devoid of merits.
8. In the result, the complaint is dismissed against all the opposite parties. There will be no order as to costs.
S. SAMBANDAM, A.K. ANNAMALAI,
MEMBER PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER
ANNEXURE
1) Complainant side Documents:
Ex A1 03.09.2005 Copy of the proceedings for inducting Mr.L.B.S. Yadhav
and others to be the trustee by the Trust.
Ex A2 12.09.2005 Copy of the proceedings for deleting Dr.S.Peter & others
from the Trust
Ex A3 15.09.2005 Copy of the proceedings for settling the dues of the
creditors of the trust by the present trustees and the
Managing Trustee.
Ex A4 Copy of statement of account issued by the 2nd opposite
party to the complainant
Ex A5 15.09.2005 Copy of Resignation Letter of the erstwhile Managing
Trustee, Dr.S. Peter.
10
Ex A6 08.04.2006 Copy of the Lawyer's notice by the complainant to
Dr. S. Peter.
Ex A7 03.05.2006 Copy of Reply notice from the Dr.S. Peter.
2) Opposite parties Documents:
NIL
S. SAMBANDAM, A.K. ANNAMALAI,
MEMBER PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER