KESHAV GOVIND LELE vs BANK MANAGER, BANK OF MAHARASHTRA

COMPLAINANT is the appellant in this appeal, who has taken exception to the order dated 30.4.2001 passed by the District Forum, Jalgaon dismissing his complaint. (For brevity''s sake appellant is referred to as "complainant" and respondents as "O.Ps.").

IT is noticed that the complainant had purchased some units of the O.P. Nos. 2 and 3 in short "UTI" and the units in question become payable in July, 1999. It appears that O.P. No. 1 was the banker of the complainant, which was reported to the UTI Authorities. When the units become matured, the complainant expected remittance thereof. As there was no response, that he corresponded with the UTI Authorities, who by their letter dated 17.11.1999 to the complainant, copy whereof is at Exhibit 2 of the appeal paper book, informed him that the warrant in question was despatched to the complainant and encashed on 9.8.1999.

This led to cause confusion to the complainant, as he directly did not receive the warrant and he, therefore, made inquiries with the O.P. No. 1.

O.P. No. 1 had made endorsement on the very letter to read "as per our record, it is observed that the Warrant No. 0031922739 for Rs. 135/- and Warrant No. 0031922755 for Rs. 270/- were not received by it from the UTI". There is another communication from UTI directly to the complainant informing that the income distribution warrant/cheque has been sent to the complainant in Bank of Maharashtra, Jalgaon Branch.

ON receipt of the complaint, it is noticed, O.P. No. 1 enquired with the Bank and endorsement made by the Bank is to read in vernacular "xxx xxx xxx" meaning thereby that the warrant in question had not reached to it. Endorsement is made on 8.10.1999 with signature of the official of the Bank/O.P. No. 1. Because of this, lack of communication or mis-communication, the complainant was required to file the complaint herein before the District Forum. Curiously, it is noticed that the District Forum in the last para of the judgment appearing on page No. 3, recorded " It is due to technical mistake on the part of the opponent No. 1 that the complainant misunderstood the facts. This does not amount to negligence in services on the part of the opponent Nos. 2 and 3 who were liable to pay to this complainant

". Perception of the District Forum in the light of facts as noticed herein above, that it was a technical mistake cannot be accepted.

IN the first instance, UTI in their communication dated 17.11.1999 to the complainant stated that the warrant in question was despatched to him directly, which was not the position, as it emerges the distribution warrant was sent to the Bank i.e. O.P. No. 1 and the amount was credited to the account of the complainant on 9.8.1999, without advice to the complainant. Therefore, as far as UTI is concerned, they should have been careful enough to inform the complainant that warrant was despatched not to the complainant directly, but his bankers. This led to the confusion, as also misleading the complainant.

EVENTUALLY, it turned out to be that O.P.-Bank had already received the warrant in question and it gave credit to the complainant by crediting the amounts of debentures into the complainant''s account with it by making consolidated credit entry for sum of Rs. 850.50, which later on turned out to be that it was a single entry made by Bank/O.P. No. 1 into the account of the complainant with it, which included the amount payable under the warrant, which he was to receive and the endorsements made by its official as pointed out herein above, were indeed wrong as also misleading. It is something amazing that with such a gross facts, the District Forum attributes the same as technical error.

The fact, therefore, clearly shows that there was also negligence on the part of the UTI in mentioning that the warrants were despatched to the complainant, when it was not the position and there was also negligence on the part of the Bank, when it has received the warrants to state that it had not received it. Secondly, Bank had made one consolidated credit entry into the account of the complainant not clearly specifying and identifying the amounts credited by it payable under the warrants or advice of the credit sent to the complainant.

IT, therefore, shows that there is element of negligence on the part of the UTI as well as O.P./Bank. We may add that District Forum was also conscious of the fact of the mess created as noticed above.

SINCE the negligence stands established against all the O.Ps., which will certainly constitute deficiency as provided under Section 14, corollary will follow that both the O.Ps. i.e. UTI and Bank as provider of the services have to make good the loss suffered by the complainant in the whole messy affair as noticed herein above. In that Sub-section 2(i)(d) clearly provides that if the negligence is proved, which would amount to deficiency, the defaulting party has to make good the compensation for the loss suffered by the complainant as also "injury suffered by the complainant". In the instant case, there may not be financial loss as such, as eventually the amount under the warrant has been credited into complainant''s account. But he had indeed suffered injury because of misleading information furnished to him by the Bank, as also by UTI. The most agonizing factor is that complainant was then about 83 years old and now he is 85 years old and the extent of his agonies and suffering has to be judged in this context. It should have been noted by the O.Ps. that the complainant was their customer and as such consumer and as provider of services, it was expected exercise of due precautions, as leading financial institutions, and should have exhibited consumer friendly approach, much less considering his advanced age. Unfortunately and regretfully, this is lacking in the case herein. What is important to note that and which is reflective, that Bank/O.P. No. 1 has not even cared to respond at all to the notice of the District Forum in the complaint, as also of this Commission, which clearly demonstrates lackadisical attitude of the Financial Institution, unbecoming to its functions to be friendly with its customers. We, therefore, order O.P. No. 1 in one part and O.P. Nos. 2 and 3 in another part, each shall pay sum of Rs. 1,500/- towards the compensation for the injury suffered by him. Hence, the following order : ORDER 1. Appeal is allowed and its impugned order dated 30.4.2001 is set aside. 2. O.P. No. 1 in one set and O.P. Nos. 2 and 3 in another set each shall pay sum of Rs. 1,500/- as compensation to the complainant, aggregating to Rs. 3,000/-. 3. O.P. No. 1 shall also pay cost in this appeal quantified at Rs. 500/- to the complainant. 4. Copies of the order herein to be furnished to the parties. 5. We are granting 6 weeks'' time to the parties for the compliance of the order

. Appeal allowed.