BRANCH MANAGER SOUTH MALABAR GRAMIN BANK Vs. V P HAMZA
KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Branch Manager South Malabar Gramin Bank
V P Hamza
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) THE above appeal is directed against the order dated:15..2..2008 of the CDRF, Malappuram in OP:109/04. The complaint therein was filed by the respondent herein against the appellant/opposite party alleging deficiency of service in not permitting the complainant/respondent from withdrawing the amount from the Nitya Nidhi Deposit Account No:4256 and closing the agricultural loan taken under Kisan Credit Card Account No:584. The complainant claimed compensation from the opposite party, South Malabar Gramin Bank, Thazhekkodu Branch for the mental agony and financial loss suffered by the complainant. The opposite party entered appearance and denied the alleged deficiency of service. The opposite party contended that the complainant had withdrawn a sum of Rs.4682/ - from the NN Deposit, on 25..3..2004 and that the next withdrawal can only be effected on 8..8..2004; that the opposite party bank had lien over the amount in the NND account, for the amount due from the complainant under the agricultural loan availed under Kisan Credit Card Account No:584. It is also contended that the complainant did not submit any application for premature closure of the NN account in order to close the agricultural loan account. Thus, the opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint in OP:109/04.
(2.) BEFORE the Forum below Exts.A1 to A7 documents were marked on the side of the complainant and Exts.B1 to B7 on the side of the opposite party. On an appreciation of the evidence on record, the Forum below found deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. Thereby directed the opposite party to pay compensation of Rs.3000/ - for the financial loss suffered by the complainant and a further sum of Rs.2000/ - as compensation for the mental agony caused to the complainant. The opposite party was also directed to pay cost of Rs.1000/ - to the complainant. Hence the present appeal by the opposite party therein.
(3.) WE heard both sides. The learned counsel for the appellant/opposite party submitted his arguments based on the grounds urged in the Memorandum of the present appeal. He much relied on Exts.B1 and B2 circular and memo issued by the bank authorities and canvassed for the position that the opposite party acted only in accordance with the guidelines issued by the bank authorities. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent/complainant supported the impugned order passed by the Forum below. He also relied on the request made by the complainant vide A4 letter dated:30.4.2004 for closure of the NN account for the purpose of closing the agricultural loan taken by the complainant under Kisan Credit Card account No:584. It is further submitted that the admitted facts would make it clear that there was deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party by withholding the amount under the NN deposit account No:4256. Thus, the respondent requested for dismissal of the present appeal.
The points that arise for consideration are: -
1. Whether there was any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party as alleged by the respondent/complainant?
2. Is there any sustainable ground to interfere with the impugned order dated:15..2..2008 passed by CDRF, Malappuram in OP:109/04?;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.