The Branch Manager Indian Overseas Bank Chengalpattu Vs. N. Ravikumar - Court Judgment

The Respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite party praying for the direction to the opposite party to pay Rs.6000/-, alongwith 25% interest, and compensation of Rs.50,000/-. The District Forum allowed the complaint. Against the said order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.29.8.2008 in OP.No.45/2007.

This petition coming before us for hearing finally on 25.2.2011. Upon hearing the arguments of the counsels on both sides, perusing the documents, lower court records, and the order passed by the District Forum, this commission made the following order:

M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT

1. The opposite party is the appellant.

2. The complainant / respondent, who is having a current account, with the opposite party, deposited a sum of Rs.6000/-, in the said account, which was not properly credited, whereas wrongly credited to someother account. Despite repeated enquiries, and request, though evasive replies were given, the amount was not credited, to the account of the complainant, thereby the opposite party had caused negligent act, inflicting injury, for which the complainant is entitled to a compensation of Rs.50000/-, in addition a direction to credit a sum of Rs.6000/-, with interest.

3. The opposite party/ appellant, though received a notice, failed to appear before the District Forum, resulting an exparte order, followed by an exparte award dt.29.8.2008, under which a direction has been given to pay a sum of Rs.25000/-, as compensation, forgetting the prayers, or ignoring the prayers, and even without assigning any valid reasons, though it is exparte. Aggrieved by this order, the opposite party has come to this commission, as appellant.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that even before the date of filing of the case, the amount deposited by the complainant was credited to his account, and not taking into account the related entry, as well as not perusing the account, a false complaint has been filed, which was unfortunately accepted by the District Forum, required to be erased, which is opposed. In view of the fact, the opposite party/ appellant, remained exparte, we do not have, what would be the actual defenses available for the opposite party. However, by filing typed set of papers, which are not under challenge, a submission was made, that though it is an exparte order, case itself can be disposed of, by this commission on merit, and in this view, instead of sending back to the Trial court, we have taken the case, to decide it on merit.

5. Admittedly, the complainant was having a current account with the opposite party, bearing Account No.2331. It is also an admitted fact, that on 12.4.2006, the complainant had deposited a sum of Rs.6000/- in the said current account, which will not carry interest, generally. As pleaded by the complainant, as admitted before us also, and as seen from the communication now made available to us, the said sum of Rs.6000/- was wrongly credited, in the sales tax Department account, instead of in the account of the complainants running current account. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant, that during that time, since the State Bank staffs have gone on strike, Government works were entrusted to IOB, and due to overload of the work, this kind of mistake had happened, which we are unable to ignore totally. However the workload cannot justify, the negligent act, that too in dealing the cash. Therefore, prima-facie, there was negligent act, or deficiency in service, on the part of the opposite party. In this context, we have to see, what is the steps taken by the opposite party, after knowing the wrong credit of the complainants account.

6. When the matter came to the knowledge of the bank, they have addressed the authorities concerned, for refund of the amount, and finally whether they have received the amount from the department, or not, as seen from the Current Account of the complainant viz. AC No.2331, the sum of Rs.6000/- was credited in his account on 9.4.2007, which is not challenged. Only after crediting this amount, this consumer complaint came to be filed before the District Forum on 13.7.2007, i.e., more or less 3 months after the credit was made, thereby showing the complainant also has not taken care of, to note whether this amount was subsequently credited in his account or not, since he may be receiving the statement of account periodically, because this is a business current account. Thus, as on the date of filing the complaint, the amount was credited, and therefore the question of issuing the first direction, will not arise for consideration.

7. As far as the compensation is concerned, for not crediting a sum of Rs.6000/-, making it available for the utility of the complainant, for a period of roughly one year, or so, though there was some negligent act, on the part of the opposite party, granting compensation of Rs.25000/- is highly exorbitant, unwarranted, excessive. The amount, even if credited, would not have earned interest, and if at all, it would have been utilized by the complainant, that is deprived. Taking into account this aspect, and quantum was only Rs.6000/-, for the period of non-availability of this amount, a compensation of Rs.1000/-, will meet the ends of justice, ofcourse with cost considering the conduct of the opposite party also. To this extent, the appeal is to be allowed, modifying the order of the District Forum.

8. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part, modifying the order of the District Forum in CC.No.45/2007 dt.29.8.2008, directing the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.1000/- as compensation, with cost of Rs.500/-, negativing the rest of the claim, directing the opposite party/ appellant, to pay the said amount within two months. There will be no order as to cost in this appeal.