T APPU Vs. EGMORE BENEFIT SOCIETY LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant is the appellant. The complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum, Chennai (North) claiming a sum of Rs.10,000/- as damages for deficiency, negligence, mental agony and suffering.

(2.) The complainant's case is thus: he opened a Savings Bank Account with the opposite party at the time when he made a Fixed Deposit Account. The complainant made deposit of Rs.25,000/- with instruction to pay monthly accruing interest thereon into his Savings Bank Account. On 30.9.1995, the complainant wanted to withdraw certain amounts from his S. B. Accout, S. B. No.6006, and wrote out a withdrawal slip for Rs.1000/-. The practice of the opposite party is that whenever a withdrawal slip is presented it will be verified by a responsible person, who checks the same and records the information in the Computer and after a printout is taken, it will be attached to the withdrawal slip and handed over to the complainant and the complainant along with the passbook has to present it at the Cashier counter for payment. The cashier upon production of both the withdrawal slip and the computer printed form would make an entry in the Daily Cash Book and disburse the amount to the party. The complainant had thus withdrawn a sum of Rs.1000/- on 30.9.1995. He was paid Rs.1000/- namely 10 currency notes of 100 denomination each. The complainant, thereafter, had left the office of the opposite party. Again, in the next month, the complainant went to the opposite party and withdrew a sum of Rs.500/- on 22.10.1995. The same procedure was followed by the opposite party. Since the complainant was in need of money, he had to encash the Fixed Deposit amount and, therefore, made a request for foreclosure of the Fixed Deposit on 4.4.1996. When the complainant approached the cashier, the cashier asked for the passbook and made inquiries about the complainant. The complainant was all of a sudden asked to follow the cashier and another person to the canteen nearby. At the canteen, the cashier informed the complainant that he had wrongly given cash of Rs.9000/- in excess, which was due to somebody, by mistake and if this mistake is known to others, he will lose his career. He, therefore, requested the complainant to help him out of the situation by taking Rs.9,000/- from the cashier and deposit the said sum into his Savings Bank Account, as though to say that the sum of Rs.9,000/- was wrongly overpaid to him. The cashier insisted that it should be done immediately since his career was at stake and in spite of the complainant's request explaining that he was in urgent need of money and he had come only to foreclose the deposit. The complainant refused to help the cashier and went out. The cashier then threatened him to hand over to the police if he did not act according to his instructions. After much persuasion, the official called the complainant into his chamber and suggested that he will permit foreclosure of the Fixed Deposit Account withholding a sum of Rs.9,000/-, pending inquiry against the cashier. He was assured that short payment will be temporarily held with the opposite party until the matter is sorted out and that they will undertake the responsibility of seeing that the complainant receives the sum of Rs.9000/- with interest in due course. The complainant had to agree to the proposal. He was asked to sign for foreclosure and the withdrawal of Rs.13,875/- with respect to the two Fixed Deposits. Entry was also made in the passbook and settlement of Fixed Deposit account. Since there was no proper response, the complainant sent an Advocate notice on 14.11.1996. They sent a reply stating that there was no responsibility to settle the short payment and made contradictory statements. The opposite party had failed to perform their legal duty namely Banking Services in accordance with law. They have failed to carry out the services to the complainant. When on the specified dates the complainant had withdrawn cash, to say, that there was excess disbursement of cash to the tune of Rs.9,000/- on a particular date cannot be accepted. The book of the opposite party has to be closed and reconciled daily as per the Banking Laws. In such circumstances, the non-payment of the entire Fixed Deposit amount with interest even after lapse of time only depicts the malfunctioning of the opposite party and deficiency of service. Hence, this complaint.

(3.) The opposite party in their version has stated as follows: the complaint is not maintainable. The trasaction commenced more than three years ago. The complainant visited the office of the opposite party on 30.9.1995 to withdraw cash from his Savings Bank Account after getting the withdrawal slip for Rs.1000/-, which was verified and checked by the saving deposit section of the opposite party and the complainant presented the same to the cashier, who was then busy transacting with a large number of customers. The cashier had inadvertently handed over to the complainant a bundle of 100 currency notes of the denomination of Rs.100/- each instead of 100 currency notes of the denomination of Rs.10/- each. The complainant dishonestly went away with the entire sum of Rs.10,000/- instead of informing the cashier about the same and failed to return the excess payment. The denomination details of the currency notes handed over to the complainant by the cashier of the opposite party have been clearly recorded on the reverse of the challan. When the huge shortage of Rs.9000/- was noticed by the opposite party only in the evening hours of the day, it became clear that the complainant was the person who received the excess payment of Rs.9,000/- and he was the only person on that day who had sought to draw cash of exactly Rs.10,000/-. Steps were taken to meet the complainant. It was informed that the complainant had sold the house and there was litigation pending in that regard between the complainant and the purchasers and the whereabouts of the complainant would be ascertained only from the Tea Shop at Ayanavaram. Therefore, the representatives of the opposite party made repeated visits to the said Tea Shop to meet the complainant. Finally the workers are of that tea shop gave the address of the complainant and the opposite party visited that address and could not find the complainant there. After a period of three months, the inmates informed that the complainant only a friend of theirs who used to stay casually there. The opposite party denied the allegations in paragraph 12 of the complaint. On 4.4.1996, the complainant visited the fixed deposit section in the premises of the opposite party to foreclose the fixed deposit made by him with the opposite party. When the concerned officials who identified the complainant and interrogated him then, he admitted that he had collected an excess payment of Rs.9,000/- from the opposite party and that instead of withdrawing Rs.1000/-, he had actually withdrawn Rs.10,000/- from the opposite party. The complainant submitted the Fixed Deposit Receipts and requested the opposite party to deduct the excess payment from the proceed thereof, and return the remaining balance amount payable due to him. He also brought along with him an elderly person who identified himself as retired Bank official. In the pressure of that person and with full and free consent of the complainant, the Fixed Deposit of the complainant with the opposite party was foreclosed and after deducting the sum of Rs.9,000/-, the entire balance was paid to the complainant by way of cheque. The complainant accepted the same in full and final settlement thereof. The other allegations are denied. The opposite party prays that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.