MANAGER, STATE BANK OF HYDERABAD vs KOTHA PANDU RANGAIAH

WE do not find any merit in this appeal and in fact this appeal ought not to have been preferred by the appellant. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellant himself that the complainant was the owner of lottery ticket bearing No. FOF 294077 which won the prize in the draw of the lottery conducted on 8.1.1993 and was entitled to receive Rs. 25,000/- from the 4th respondent i.e., Karnataka State Lottery at Bangalore and that the said ticket was deposited with the appellant Bank on 16.2.1993 for collection and that the said ticket was sent to the Bangalore Branch of State Bank of Hyderabad on 25.2.1993 for collection. The Bangalore Branch sent that ticket to the 4th respondent/4th opposite party on 9.3.1993 but the latter returned the ticket to the Bangalore Branch on the same day stating that the amount would be paid to the complainant himself in person as the prize money was over Rs. 25,000/-. But the appellant Bank did not inform the complainant even though the time for submitting the winning ticket to the 4th respondent/4th opposite party for payment was only 90 days from the date of the draw i.e., upto 8.4.1993. The appellant Bank tried to rectify the situation belatedly by taking the complainant to Bangalore and requesting them to make the payment. As to what happened thereafter was stated in the grounds of appeal before us as follows : "State Bank of Hyderabad, J.C. Road, Bangalore has advised the respondent No. 1 (complainant) to approach directly respondent No. 4. But due to internal delay oversight and pressure of work it could not inform immediately. On 18.10.1993 under Ex. B-5 respondent No. 1 requested respondent No. 4 for payment by condoning delay. On the same day State Bank of Hyderabad, Bangalore also, requested as a special case under Ex. B-2 received on 7.12.1993. Respondent No. 4 rejected the request."

THE District Forum, taking all aspects into consideration, held that there was deficiency in service on the part of the appellant Bank and directed it to pay to the complainant Rs. 25,000/- with interest @ 15% per annum from 16.2.1993 till the date of payment. THE appellant questions this order. We have the record of the District Forum before us. After going through the record carefully we are satisfied that the District Forum was right in allowing the complaint as it did. THE complainant stated in his complaint that after depositing the lottery ticket with the appellant on 16.2.1993 he visited that Bank several times and made enquiries whether the amount was collected. He stated that he received letter dated 18.8.1993 (copy marked as Ex. A-2) from the appellant asking him to call on the Bank on any working day for collection of the lottery ticket and that when he went to the appellant Bank there was no reply. He then addressed a registered letter dated 10.9.1993 which was received by the Bank and yet there was no response. THE complainant thereafter addressed registered letters dated 22.9.1993 (copy marked as Ex. A-3) and 7.2.1994 (copy marked as Ex. A-10) to the appellant and the opposite parties 2 and 3 (respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in the appeal) demanding payment of the lottery amount. He further stated that the appellant Bank deputed its Officer Shri Ajit Kumar to go to Bangalore alongwith him on costs of the Bank and they went to the opposite party No. 4/respondent No. 4 on 18.10.1993 and that he returned to Mahaboobnagar on 19.10.1993. As that had no result he finally approached the District Forum byway of the present complaint. THE complainant gave his affidavit dated 2.11.1994 in support of his complaint reiterating what was stated by him in his complaint. THE appellant filed its counter and the Branch Manager Shri K. Subhash gave his affidavit dated 5.10.1995 supporting his version. He admitted that the complainant deposited the lottery ticket bearing No. FOF 294077 issued by the 4th respondent/4th opposite party for collection after opening O.S.B. account with his branch and that the said ticket was sent for collection to the J.C. Road Branch of State Bank of Hyderabad at Bangalore. Though it was stated by the appellant that he addressed a letter on 18.1.1993 to the complainant for collection of the lottery ticket clearly mentioning therein that the prize money should be collected by the complainant from the 4th respondent/4th opposite party, no copy of such letter was filed. On the other hand the record of the District Forum contains Ex. A-2 letter dated 18.8.1993 wherein with reference to the lottery ticket dated 8.1.1993 presented for collection on 25.2.1993, it was stated as follows : "We request you to call on us on any working day during office hours and collect personally your lottery ticket presented to us for collection on 25.2.1993 as they wish that you collect the prized money personally from them." Thus the first intimation given by the appellant to the complainant for taking return of the lottery ticket and for collecting the prize money was only by letter dated 18.8.1993. This was more than four months after the expiry of the 90 days from the date of the draw. It was also stated in the affidavit of Mr. K. Subhash as follows : "THE Respondent No. 1 Bank has taken pains by deputing an officer to Bangalore and to persuade the respondent No. 4 to arrange for the payment of the prize money of lottery ticket to the complainant. THE respondent No. 4 has promised to pay the prize money. But ultimately the payment was rejected by the respondent No. 4. THE respondent No. 1 Bank has incurred expenditure of Rs. 2,800/- in the above connection."

THE appellant also filed a copy of letter dated 18.10.1993 (marked as Ex. B-2) addressed by the J.C. Road Branch of State Bank of Hyderabad at Bangalore stating, inter alia, as follows : "Our Mahaboobnagar Branch had sent the same to us in March, 1993 which was presented to you on 9.3.1993. THE ticket was returned on the same day for the reason Payment will be made to the beneficiary only in person since it was a 1st prize of Rs. 25,000/-. We have prepared a suitable advice to the beneficiary on 11.3.1993 but due to some error it was not delivered to the beneficiary in time. THEn due to some internal delay in the Bank the beneficiary has lost claim on the prize money. THE representation of the claimant is also enclosed for your kind perusal and favourable action, we request you to condone the delay as a special case and pay the prize money to Sri K. Pandu Rangaiah at the earliest."

From Ex. B-2 it is obvious that the default was clearly on the part of the Bank and therefore there was obvious deficiency in service on the part of the Bank in not informing the complainant that he should personally collect the lottery ticket amount from the 4th respondent/4th opposite party. THEre was no explanation whatsoever for the delay in informing the complainant after the 4th respondent/4th opposite party returned the ticket on 9.3.1993. In United India Insurance Company Limited v. Satrughan Sharma, I (1999) CPJ 1 (NC), the National Commission held that when the Bank failed to pay the premium amount to the Insurance Company after accepting the same from its customer there was clear deficiency of service on the part of the Bank and that consequently it was liable to make good the entire loss to the customer. We therefore do not find any ground for interfering with the order of the District Forum. THE appeal is dismissed. No costs. Appeal dismissed.