The Branch Manager, Jammu and Kashmir Bank Ltd., Chennai Vs. Abdul Majeed Baba - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1110843
CourtTamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided OnNov-30-2009
Case NumberF.A.NO.608 of 2006 [Against order in C.C.No.402 of 2000 on the file of the DCDRF, Chennai (South)]
JudgeHON'BLE THIRU JUSTICE M. THANIKACHALAM PRESIDENT THIRU PON. GUNASEKARAN B.A.,B.L., MEMBER - I
AppellantThe Branch Manager, Jammu and Kashmir Bank Ltd., Chennai
RespondentAbdul Majeed Baba
Excerpt:
honble m. thanikachalam j, president 1. the opposite party who suffered an adverse order in the hands of the district consumer disputes redressal forum, chennai (south), is the appellant. 2. the respondent herein as complainant, has filed a case, claiming a direction against the opposite party/appellant, to pay the maturity amounts as per the cash certificates with interest thereon and for a compensation of rs.2 lakhs on the grounds that the complainant deposited a sum of rs.95,800/- as per the cash certificate no.121979, having maturity value of rs.1,07,824/- and deposited another sum of rs.1,11,400/- as per the cash certificate bearing no.121980, having maturity value of rs.1,25,383/-, that when he approached the bank on 28.03.97 for further renewal, it was evaded and later on, they have informed that the amount standing in the credit of the complainant had been adjusted towards the liability of a firm called m/s.madras leather international, situated at chennai, that the complainant had no connection whatsoever with the said company, that he never authorized the bank to adjust his money for the liability of some third party and that by the acts of the opposite party unilaterally adjusting the amount, they have acted not only negligently, but also high-handedly, thereby committed deficiency in service and despite the demand, they failed to return the amount and therefore as said above, suitable direction should be issued, ordering compensation. 3. the appellant/opposite party opposed the case of the complainant inter alia on the ground that one m/s.madras leather international, represented by its partners mr.gh.nabi mir, mr.a.h.hamid bhat and mrs.sharifa khan, w/o.abdul majid hkan, were operating current accounts, over draft accounts and other such accounts with the opposite partys branch at chennai since 1992 against the security inclusive of some term deposits including the complainants deposits, that there was no credit in the accounts of m/s.madras leather international to reduce and liquidate some balance, the proceeds of the fixed deposits of the complainant, which was available as security, came to be adjusted towards the outstanding in the accounts of the said firm at their maturity, which cannot be termed as negligent act or amounts to deficiency in service since they have not committed any misappropriation, thereby, prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. 4. the district forum, chennai (south) has assessed and evaluated the pleadings, supported by ex.a1 to ex.a6 and ex.b1 to ex.b3, which revealed that the opposite party had committed negligent act in adjusting the amount of the complainant without authorization and authority and therefore they should be held responsible. thus concluding, a direction came to be issued for the return of the above said amounts with interest thereon at 9% per annum, in addition to, compensation of rs.10,000/-, which is under challenge before us. 5. heard the learned counsel appearing for either side, perused the documents, written submissions as well as the order of the district forum. 6. it is the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the deposits made by the complainant were shown as security, for operating current account, over draft accounts etc., by one m/s.madras leather international, and the said company, since failed to discharge the over draft debt, the fixed deposit shown as security, on maturity, the amounts realized were adjusted, which cannot be termed as negligent act or deficiency in service. thus urging, a fervent appeal was made to relieve the bank from the direction issued by the lower forum, since they acted according to the rules and regulations. per contra, it is the submission of the learned counsel for the complainant/respondent, that the complainant had no connection at all with m/s.madras leather international and in fact, the fixed deposits receipts were not shown as security, for which, he has not also given any consent authority or power and this being the position, that the amount payable to the complainant on maturity of the fixed deposits receipts, its adjustment towards the account of m/s.madras leather international is not only erroneous, but also a high-handed act, coming within the core definition of deficiency in service, since deprived the benefits of the fixed deposits receipts, which should have been available on its maturity. 7. hearing the above submissions, perusing the order of the lower forum as well as written submissions made by either parties and having given our anxious thought and application of mind, we are of the firm view, unquestionable in nature, that the lower forum has not committed any error, which should follow, the submission of the appellant are to be negativated while accepting the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent/complainant. 8. there is no dispute between the parties, regarding the amount, deposited by the complainant in the appellants bank under receipt nos.121979 and 121980, rs.95,800/- and rs.1,07,824/- respectively. the maturity value of the amount given in the complaint for the above said fixed deposits receipts at rs.1,07,824/- and rs.1,25,382/-, respectively are also not under challenge. admittedly, after the maturity of the above said fixed deposits receipts or cash receipts, intended for fixed deposits receipts, upon maturity, the amounts were not paid to the complainant, who is entitled to receive the same, legitimately as of right. even on this date, the amounts were not paid and therefore it should be construed, that the bank had committed default in payment of the amount to the complainant, having undertaken to pay the same, after the period prescribed for the fixed deposits receipts, which should be construed as deficiency in service, unquestionably, since the bank had the benefits upon deposit amount, thereby, earning more interest, paying less interest to the depositors. therefore, it is for the opposite party in order to escape from the clutches of deficiency in service, to make out a case, that they are empowered by the complainant to adjust the amount, showing the fixed deposits receipts as security for the amount payable by one m/s.madras leather international. 9. as rightly recorded by the lower forum, except the bare allegations that these fixed deposits receipts were shown as security, no material has been placed. when this commission has also questioned the appellant, under what authority they have adjusted the amounts, under what authority m/s.madras leather international, had shown these fixed deposits receipts as security for their over draft, we are unable to get any reply, whether it is satisfactory or otherwise. even m/s.madras leather international had, shown these fixed deposits receipts as security, while availing the benefit of over draft that will not bind the complainant unless it is made out that the complainant himself was a party in offering the security, then empowering the bank to encash the fixed deposits receipts, for adjusting the amount payable by m/s.madras leather international. it is also not shown, how the complainant is connected or related to m/s.madras leather international. in this view of the matter, the mere ipsi - dixie of the opposite party is insufficient to evade the responsibility, or to avoid the responsibility or to refuse to pay the amount due to the complainant, under the admitted fixed deposits receipts. the trial forum considering all these facts, has come to a correct conclusion in issuing direction including compensation, in which, since we are unable to find anything wrong offending legal principles, we would confirm the findings, dismissing the appeal. 10. in the result, the appeal dismissed with cost, confirming the order of the district forum in op.no.402/2000 dt.02.08.2005. in this appeal, the appellant/opposite party is directed to pay a sum of rs.1,500/- towards cost to the respondent / complainant.
Judgment:

HONBLE M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT

1. The opposite party who suffered an adverse order in the hands of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chennai (South), is the appellant.

2. The respondent herein as complainant, has filed a case, claiming a direction against the opposite party/appellant, to pay the maturity amounts as per the Cash Certificates with interest thereon and for a compensation of Rs.2 lakhs on the grounds that the complainant deposited a sum of Rs.95,800/- as per the Cash Certificate No.121979, having maturity value of Rs.1,07,824/- and deposited another sum of Rs.1,11,400/- as per the Cash Certificate bearing No.121980, having maturity value of Rs.1,25,383/-, that when he approached the bank on 28.03.97 for further renewal, it was evaded and later on, they have informed that the amount standing in the credit of the complainant had been adjusted towards the liability of a firm called M/s.Madras Leather International, situated at Chennai, that the complainant had no connection whatsoever with the said Company, that he never authorized the Bank to adjust his money for the liability of some third party and that by the acts of the opposite party unilaterally adjusting the amount, they have acted not only negligently, but also high-handedly, thereby committed deficiency in service and despite the demand, they failed to return the amount and therefore as said above, suitable direction should be issued, ordering compensation.

3. The appellant/opposite party opposed the case of the complainant inter alia on the ground that one M/s.Madras Leather International, represented by its partners Mr.Gh.Nabi Mir, Mr.A.H.Hamid Bhat and Mrs.Sharifa Khan, W/o.Abdul Majid Hkan, were operating current accounts, over draft accounts and other such accounts with the opposite partys branch at Chennai since 1992 against the security inclusive of some term deposits including the complainants deposits, that there was no credit in the accounts of M/s.Madras Leather International to reduce and liquidate some balance, the proceeds of the fixed deposits of the complainant, which was available as security, came to be adjusted towards the outstanding in the accounts of the said Firm at their maturity, which cannot be termed as negligent act or amounts to deficiency in service since they have not committed any misappropriation, thereby, prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

4. The District Forum, Chennai (South) has assessed and evaluated the pleadings, supported by Ex.A1 to Ex.A6 and Ex.B1 to Ex.B3, which revealed that the opposite party had committed negligent act in adjusting the amount of the complainant without authorization and authority and therefore they should be held responsible. Thus concluding, a direction came to be issued for the return of the above said amounts with interest thereon at 9% per annum, in addition to, compensation of Rs.10,000/-, which is under challenge before us.

5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for either side, perused the documents, written submissions as well as the order of the District Forum.

6. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the deposits made by the complainant were shown as security, for operating current account, Over Draft accounts etc., by one M/s.Madras Leather International, and the said Company, since failed to discharge the Over Draft debt, the fixed deposit shown as security, on maturity, the amounts realized were adjusted, which cannot be termed as negligent act or deficiency in service. Thus urging, a fervent appeal was made to relieve the bank from the direction issued by the lower forum, since they acted according to the rules and regulations. Per contra, it is the submission of the learned counsel for the complainant/respondent, that the complainant had no connection at all with M/s.Madras Leather International and in fact, the fixed deposits receipts were not shown as security, for which, he has not also given any consent authority or power and this being the position, that the amount payable to the complainant on maturity of the fixed deposits receipts, its adjustment towards the account of M/s.Madras Leather International is not only erroneous, but also a high-handed act, coming within the core definition of deficiency in service, since deprived the benefits of the fixed deposits receipts, which should have been available on its maturity.

7. Hearing the above submissions, perusing the order of the lower forum as well as Written Submissions made by either parties and having given our anxious thought and application of mind, we are of the firm view, unquestionable in nature, that the lower forum has not committed any error, which should follow, the submission of the appellant are to be negativated while accepting the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent/complainant.

8. There is no dispute between the parties, regarding the amount, deposited by the complainant in the appellants bank under Receipt Nos.121979 and 121980, Rs.95,800/- and Rs.1,07,824/- respectively. The maturity value of the amount given in the complaint for the above said fixed deposits receipts at Rs.1,07,824/- and Rs.1,25,382/-, respectively are also not under challenge. Admittedly, after the maturity of the above said fixed deposits receipts or Cash Receipts, intended for fixed deposits receipts, upon maturity, the amounts were not paid to the complainant, who is entitled to receive the same, legitimately as of right. Even on this date, the amounts were not paid and therefore it should be construed, that the Bank had committed default in payment of the amount to the complainant, having undertaken to pay the same, after the period prescribed for the fixed deposits receipts, which should be construed as deficiency in service, unquestionably, since the Bank had the benefits upon deposit amount, thereby, earning more interest, paying less interest to the depositors. Therefore, it is for the opposite party in order to escape from the clutches of deficiency in service, to make out a case, that they are empowered by the complainant to adjust the amount, showing the fixed deposits receipts as security for the amount payable by one M/s.Madras Leather International.

9. As rightly recorded by the lower forum, except the bare allegations that these fixed deposits receipts were shown as security, no material has been placed. When this Commission has also questioned the appellant, under what authority they have adjusted the amounts, under what authority M/s.Madras Leather International, had shown these fixed deposits receipts as security for their Over Draft, we are unable to get any reply, whether it is satisfactory or otherwise. Even M/s.Madras Leather International had, shown these fixed deposits receipts as security, while availing the benefit of Over Draft that will not bind the complainant unless it is made out that the complainant himself was a party in offering the security, then empowering the Bank to encash the fixed deposits receipts, for adjusting the amount payable by M/s.Madras Leather International. It is also not shown, how the complainant is connected or related to M/s.Madras Leather International. In this view of the matter, the mere ipsi - dixie of the opposite party is insufficient to evade the responsibility, or to avoid the responsibility or to refuse to pay the amount due to the complainant, under the admitted fixed deposits receipts. The trial forum considering all these facts, has come to a correct conclusion in issuing direction including compensation, in which, since we are unable to find anything wrong offending legal principles, we would confirm the findings, dismissing the appeal.

10. In the result, the appeal dismissed with cost, confirming the order of the District Forum in OP.No.402/2000 dt.02.08.2005. In this appeal, the appellant/opposite party is directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,500/- towards cost to the Respondent / complainant.