D Ramadevi vs SYNDICATE BANK

IN this complaint the complainant has sought compensation in a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/ - from the Opposite Party -Syndicate Bank for causing delay in sending her application and a cheque for allotmentof public issues of M/s. Gujarat Industries Power Company Ltd., Baroda.

THE complainant averred that on 14.7.92 she made an application for allotment of public issues of Messrs Gujarat Industries Power Company Ltd., Baroda and along with it sent a cheque for a sum of Rs. 6,000/ - to the State Bank of India. When the State Bank of India presented the said cheque for clearance the Opposite Party -Bank did not honour the cheque stating that no sufficient funds were available in the complainant''s account. The complainant averred that as a matter of fact, a sum of Rs. 22,000/ - was the amount lying in deposit in her account with the Opposite Party -Bank on that day. The complainant further averred that due to this non -clearance of the cheque by the Opposite Party -Bank the shares were not allotted on her application to her and consequently she suffered a loss and sought compensation, as referred above, in a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/ -.

THE Opposite Party -Bank filed its version and admitted the fact that due to oversight the cheque of the complainant was not cleared though there were sufficient funds in the account of the complainant on that day. But the Opposite Party -Bank further averred that on finding this mistake immediately a Demand Draft for the said sum of Rs. 6,000/ - was sent to the State Bank of India which was accepted by the State Bank of India and her application was considered for allotment of shares, as sought for by her. The complainant has made the complaint when shares were not allotted to her on her application. So the Opposite Party -Bank nextly averred that no loss did occur to the complainant as the Opposite Party well in time did send the amount of the cheque by way of D.D. to the State Bank of India, the collecting agent of Messrs. Gujarat Industries Power Company Ltd., Baroda. The Opposite Party -Bank on the basis of these averments sought the complaint to be dismissed.

DURING enquiry the complainant filed her affidavit and the Opposite Party also filed the affidavit of the Assistant Manager of the Bank. We heard the learned Counsel for the Opposite Party and the learned Counsel for the complainant. We have perused the material placed on record by the parties.

IT is an admitted fact that the cheque issued by the complainant for a sum of Rs. 6,000/ - which was presented by the State Bank of India was not cleared by the Opposite Party even though the funds were available in the account of the complainant, which was done by oversight.

THE Opposite Party as soon as it came to know of this mistake immediately on its own expenses got a D.D. for the said amount of the cheque and sent it to the State Bank of India well in time. The application of the complainant was considered by the Company i.e., Messrs. Gujarat Industries Power Company Ltd., Baroda and shares were not allotted to the complainant. This fact is evident from the letter of Messrs Gujarat Industries Power Company Ltd., Baroda dated 22.4.93. This shows that the Company received the application for allotment of shares of the complainant and did not allot the shares to the complainant. The said letter of the said Company dated 22.4.93 addressed to the complainant reads as under: GUJARAT INDUSTRIES POWER COMPANY LTD. Regd. Office: P.O. Petrofils 391 347 Distt. Baroda, Phones: 72768, 73213, 73159, FAX 0265 73207 Telex : 0175 -498 GIPC IN. Gram : GIPL. Ref: SEC/93/522 UPC 22nd April, 1993 To, Smt. D. Rama Devi, Syndicate Bank, Vasanthanagar Branch, Bangalore. Re: Your application No. 1104718 for 30 PCDS. Dear Sir/Madam, With reference to your complaint for non -receipt of refund. We are enclosing herewith an Indemnity Bond for issue of duplicate refund order. Your are requested to sign the Indemnity Bond and get your signature verified as required therein and send it to MCS Ltd. for issue of Duplicate Refund Order. Thanking you, Yours faithfully, For GUJARAT INDUSTRIES POWER CO. LTD. Sd/ - (S.V. RAVAI), Asstt. Secretarial Officer. MCS LIMITED. Sri. Venkatesh Bhawan, 212 -A Shahpuriat, Behind Panchsheel Club, New Delhi -110 016. (Unit: Gujarat Industries Power Co. Ltd.) Smt. D. Ramadevi C/o Smt. D. Rama Devi, Syndicate Bank, 11, Dattatreya Road, Vasanthanagar Branch, Basavanagudi, Bangalore. Bangalore -560 004. Dear Sir/Madam, Allotment made to you as follows: Appln. No. No. of PCDS. Amount Refund or. Applied Allotted Appl. Refund No 1104218 30 Nil 6000/ - 6000/ - 516415. Kindly note that the above Refund Order, valid upto 14.1.93 had already been despatched to you in case of non receipt, please sign this letter at the place marked "X" and return to us. To expedite issue of refund order. You are requested to get your signature verified from Bank and return the same to us. Please ignore this if you have already encashed the refund order. The duplicate refund order will be despatched after reconciliation/ sometime during April/ May, ''93. Yours truly, INDEMNITY BOND I hereby certify that Refund order No. has been received by me. Please issue me a duplicate. I undertake to indemnify Gujarat Industries Power Co. Ltd., against any loss arising there from. My signature has been duly attested by my Banker. Bank Code Refund Order No. Amount (Rs.) A 59/60001 516415 6000/ - SIGNATURE OF THE APPLICANT VERIFIED ''X'' Signature of Date Applicant. SIGNATURE OF BANK MANAGER WITH THEIR OFFICIAL RUBBER STAMP." This accidental mistake committed by the Opposite Party -Bank, as referred above, sent the money under the cheque well in time by way of D.D. and the Company received it and didnot allot the shares in favour of the complainant. Having regard to these facts, it is clear that the mistake of non -clearance of the cheque of the complainant by the Opposite Party did not cause any loss to the complainant.

HAVING regard to these facts and in the circumstances of the case, we are constrained to hold that the complainant failed to prove that the services of the Opposite Party -Bank were deficient in nature.

IN the result, therefore, this complaint fails and it is dismissed. The parties are directed to pay and bear their own costs. Complaint dismissed.