S KAMALA DEVI Vs. UCO BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Complainant had opened two Savings Bank Accounts bearing Nos.3172 and 3244 in the name of her minor children Chi. V. S. Balasubramaniam and Chi. V. S. Jaya Prakash represented by herself as Guardian and in her own name respectively with the Respondent Bank's Branch at Peenya as per her applications Exs. R-1 and R-3. Exs. R-2 and R-4 are the specimen signature cards of the complainant in respect of the said accounts. Her husband Shri V. S. Sathyanarayan had introduced her to the Bank at the time of opening the said accounts. Complainant's husband had also an S. B. Account bearing No.3245 in the said Bank. Her husband was Proprietor of the business concern called M/s. Essay Steel Traders and he had opened Cash Credit Account bearing No.25/88 in the name of his business concern in the said Bank. The transactions with the Respondent Bank were going on smoothly till the complainant and her husband along with their children shifted over to new residence at No.211, 17th "d" Cross, III Block, IV Stage, West of Chord Road, Bangalore79 in September 1989. At the same time, the complainant started her own business in Iron and Steel in Peenya Industrial Estate and opened an account in the name of her business concern in the Bank of India, Basaveswara Nagar Branch which was nearer to the residence. So she thought that it would be convenient to her to operate on her and on her minor children's accounts if maintained with Bank of India, Basaveswara Nagar Branch. So she decided to transfer major portion of her funds to Bank of India Branch leaving small business with the Respondent Bank. So on 19-7-1989, a cheque, Ex. C-1, for Rs.2,74,500/- in her S. B. A/c No.3224 was drawn upon the Respondent Bank in favour of Bank of India for crediting to her account in that bank and the said cheque was presented to the Respondent Bank on 1-9-1989. Similarly, Ex. C-2, dated 19-7-1989 for a sum of Rs.85,000/- in the S. B. A/c No.3172 on behalf of her minor son, Chi. V. S. Balasubramaniam drawn on the Resp. Bank in favour of Bank of India was presented to the Respondent Bank on 1-9-1989. So also in respect of Ex. C-3 pertaining to her minor son Chi. V. S. Jaya Prakash's account for Rs.84,500/- drawn on the Respondent Bank in favour of Bank of India was also presented to the Respondent Bank on 1 -9-89. All the 3 said cheques were returned on the ground that the drawer's signature differs as per Ex. C-4. Similarly, Cheques, Exs. C-5, C-7 and C-9, drawn on me Respondent Bank for Rs.2,75,000/-, Rs.85,000/- and Rs.84,500/- respectively were returned by the Respondent Bank on the ground that the drawer's signature differed and as the cheques contained extraneous matter along with the slips Exs. C-6, C-8 and C-10 respectively On 6-9-1989, a sum of Rs, 2,10,000/- was transferred from her S. B. Account No.3224 to the Cash Credit Account of her husband's business account number unauthorized. On 3-10-1989, cheque, Ex. C-13 issued by the Complainant for Rs.2,75,00/- in her favour was returned on the same day for want of so much of cash on that day along with Memo, Ex. C-14. Hence the complainant has filed this complaint, for re-transfer and re-credit of sum of Rs.2,10,000/- which was illegally transferred from her S. B. Account No.3224 to Cash Credit Account of her husband and for special damages of Rs.7,90,000/- on account of loss of business and reputation due to the wrongful dishonoring of the cheques by the Respondent Bank.

(2.) The complaint is resisted by the Respondents by contending inter-alia, that the complainant is not a "consumer" within the meaning of Sec.2 (1) (d) (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'act') and so the complaint is not maintainable; that this commission has no jurisdiction to award damages prayed for by the complainant as she has not alleged negligence on the part of the compensation in her complaint; that there has been delay of 9 months in filing the complaint; that the amount of Rs.2,10,000/- was transferred from the S. B. Account of the complainant to the business account of her husband to satisfy in part over-drawings of her husband on her specific oral instructions; that the cheques were returned for valid reasons as the signatures of complainant on those cheques did not tally with her specimen signature and as there was extraneous matters on the reverse of some cheques and cheque, Ex. C-13 was returned for want of sufficient funds as stated in the Memo, Ex. C-14 and that the complainant is not entitled to any complainant as claimed.

(3.) The complainant has given evidence as C. W-1 and has produced Exs. C-1 to C-22. On behalf of the respondents Sri. R. G. Ramaswamy, R. W-1 has given evidence and has produced Exs. R-1 to R-10.