Decided on July 16,2010

P R Suresh Hedge Respondents


- (1.)THIS appeal prefers from the order passed by CDRF, Palakkad in the file of OP.No.235/01 dated 25th January 2002. The appellants are the opposite parties who preferred this appeal. According to the complainant he is a watch repairer and he was operating Pigmy deposit account No.10947 with first opposite party. He was served with a letter by OP.No.1 in August 2000 stating that on receipt of the above letter, he issued a letter to the first opposite party requesting to issue a clearance certificate in respect of his current account No.355, for the closure of the Pigmy deposit account and for refund of the amount. In pursuance of the letter, opposite party No.1 issued a clearance certificate to him on 15.2.01 in respect of the current account. But first opposite party did not comply with his request to refund the amount standing in the pigmy deposit account after closing the same prematurely. On 22.3.01, the complainant sent a registered letter to 2nd opposite party for taking action. A reply was received from the second opposite party on 29.3.01, but no action was taken. The acts of the opposite parties amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, as the complainant prayed for a direction to the opposite parties to refund Rs.1640/ - together with compensation o Rs.20,000/ - with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 1.8.2000 till the date of payment with costs.
(2.)FIRST opposite party appeared and filed their written version. After receiving the notice the second opposite party did not appear and he was called absent. First opposite party denied on the allegations in the complaint. He contended that first opposite party had sent a letter dated 19.5.01 dispatched on 20.5.01 to the complainant to approach the bank to discuss about the closure of the pigmy deposit account, that the present complaint has been filed falsely because of the fact that initiated recovery proceedings against the complainant for the default in payment of an earlier loan and that there is no deficiency in service or willful negligence on the part of the first opposite party. According to him the pigmy deposit account has been matured and first opposite party is ready to refund the amount lying in the pigmy deposit account provided the complainant approaches the bank and signs in a stamped receipt in the prescribed forms as per the rules of the bank. On the above reasons, it is praying that the complaint be dismissed with compensatory costs of Rs.5000/ - to the first opposite party.
(3.)THE complainant was examined as PW1 and first opposite party OP.No.1 was examined as DW1. P1 to P7 were marked as Exts. for the complaint R1 to R5 were marked as Exts for the opposite parties. The Forum below rightly answered all the questions and found that the complaint is genuine and complaint is allowed with cost of Rs.1000/ -. The opposite parties filed this appeal from such an order.
On this day this appeal came before this Commission, the appellant is present and the respondent is absent. The counsel for the appellant argued on the grounds of appeal memorandum that there is no representation for OP.No.2 in the bank such address is false. He also submitted that the appellant/Bank was informed the complainant that the deposit is ready for the payment, but the complainant did not turned up. He directly approaches to the Forum below in this complaint. He submits that this order passed by the Forum below is not accordance with law and evidence it is not legally sustainable. The counsel for the appellant showed a letter sent by the bank to the complainant for the appearance before the Bank for the payment of the deposit amount. But it is not a registered letter. It may be falsely fabricated by the bank. There was no explanation from the bank in this point. We are seeing that the Banks attitude was adamant. Otherwise, he will settle the matter at the time of the pendency of OP before the Forum below even the dispute involved a very negligible amount. We are considering that the respondent/complainant is a watch repairer belonging to the Western boundary of the State. For this purpose he canno t come to the Commission either at Trivandrum or at Ernakulam. The amount involving in this case is very meager. He want to spent for more money for the appearance. We are considering the sympathetic condition of the respondent/complainant. But as per the evidence, we are seeing that the appellant/Bank who committed the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. The submission of the counsel for the appellant cann t be helpful to the appellant without explanation, how is submitting that concerned a notice is not existing in the nationalized bank like Syndicate Bank. We are seeing any apparent error and any irregularity or illegality in the order passed by the Forum below. This order passed by the forum below is strictly accordance with law and evidence. It is legally sustainable. But we are seeing some error in the result portion. It is an error and a mistake.

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.