B. E. CO-OPERATIVE BANK Vs. TULLURI RAMA KRISHNA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is the opposite party in CC 24/2007 before the District Forum I, Krishna at Machilipatnam, where under, the opposite party was directed to credit an amount of Rs.5,000/- to the S. O. D. Account, bearing No. 251 of the complainant and also to pay compensation of Rs. 5000/- with costs of Rs.1000/-. The impugned order is assailed as erroneous both on questions of fact ad law.

(2.) The facts of the case are that the complainant had opened an S.O.D. Account bearing No. 150 with the opposite party bank and used to operate it. But it was closed on 26.09.2006. Subsequently, he opened a new account bearing no. 251 with the opposite party on 07.10.2006. The opposite party had sent a letter dated 16.03.2007 informing that a sum of Rs.5000/- was wrongly credited to his old Account bearing no. 150 and another customer of their bank, by name, A. Ramakrishna Rao bearing SOD Account No 159 had produced a counterfoil dated 08.12.2005 for Rs.5,000/- complaining that the said amount was not credited to his account and basing on the said counter foil issued by the opposite party had verified the accounts and on enquiry it was found that a sum of Rs.5000/- was wrongly credited in A/c No. 150 by then he had already closed his previous account no. 150 on 26.09.2006 itself. The complainant is not aware of the transaction of Rs.5000/- dated 08.12.2005 and his accounts are actually looked after by his clerks. The opposite party also never informed about the wrong crediting of a sum of Rs.5000/- and without giving an opportunity or verification of the accounts a sum of Rs.5000/- was debited from his new S.O.D. Account No. 251 which act or omission amounts to deficiency in service. Hence claimed for refund of Rs.5000/- with compensation of Rs.2000/- and costs.

(3.) The opposite party bank in its version has stated that the complainant had opened SOD Account bearing no. 251 on 07.10.2006. The opposite party sent a letter dated 16.03.2007 informing him about the debiting of Rs.5000/- from his new Account bearing no .251 towards wrong credit of Rs.5000/- to his old Account no. 150 and that another customer by name A. Ramakrishna Rao has produced the counter foil dated 08.12.2005 for Rs.5000/- about non-crediting of the amount into his Account No. 159. The allegation that a sum of Rs.5000/- was debited illegally without giving any intimation is denied. On verification of the records it is known that the complainant had not remitted Rs.5000/- into his Account and that on the other hand A. Ramakrishna Rao had remitted the amount for crediting in his SOD Account no. 159. The opposite party immediately informed the same to the complainant through its messenger and sent original voucher through messenger for verification and confirmation. The complainant knowing fully well about the credit of Rs.5000/- to his old Account had intentionally closed the said Account. Intimation was sent through registered letter dated 10.03.2007 which was acknowledged about the debiting of Rs.5000/- new SOD Account No. 251 for wrong crediting of Rs.5000/- in his earlier SOD Account no. 150.