IN THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI.

Present:Hon’ble THIRU.JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH:PRESIDENT F.A. No.7 of 2021 [Against the order dated 12.12.2019 passed in C.C.No.5 of

2019 by the DCDRF., Villupuram].

Thursday, the 29th day of August, 2024

1. The Secretary, Primary Agricultural Co-operative Bank, Sithathur Village, Kandachipuram Taluk, Villupuram District.

2. The Sub Registrar, O/O Sub Registrar of Co-operative Society, Tirukovilur, Villupuram District.

3. The Zonal Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Villupuram. ... Appellants/Opposite Parties 1 to 3 - Vs –

Subramanian, S/o Annamalai, Sithathoor Village, KandachipuramTaluk, Villupuram District. ... Respondent/Complainant For the Appellants/Opp. Parties 1 to 3: M/s.R.Arumugam For the Respondent/Complainant : M/s. V.Semmalai This appeal came up before me for final hearing today (29.08.2024), and on hearing the arguments of the counsel for the Appellants/opposite parties 1 to 3 and on perusing the material records, this Commission made the following Order in the Open Court:-

O R D E R

R.SUBBIAH J., PRESIDENT (Open Court Order)

This appeal has been filed by the opposite parties 1 to

3 as against the order dated 12.12.2019 passed in C.C.No.5 of 2019 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Villupuram, allowing the complain t filed by the Respondent herein in part.

2. The Appellants are the opposite parties 1 to 3 and the Respondent is the complainant before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Villupuram. For the sake of convenience, the parties in the course of this order will be referred as per their respective rankings before the District Forum.

3. In brief, the case of the complainant runs thus:

The complainant was having a Savings Bank Account in the first opposite party bank. As on 04.12.2017 he was having a balance of Rs.47,500/- in his account. On 05.12.2017 the complainant had withdrawn a sum of Rs.15,000/-. After withdrawing the said amount, the first opposite party instead of making the entry of Rs.32,500/- as balance, had wrongly entered Rs.32,400/- as balance. Thus they have omitted to enter a sum of Rs.100/- in the balance amount. When the complainant had questioned the same, the Secretary of the first opposite party bank has not given any proper reply. Hence, the complainant had approached the Taluk Legal Services Committee. On receipt of the notice from the Taluk Legal Services Committee, the society staff traced the old manually maintained ledgers and then compared the same with the computer entry and found out that on 28.09.2015 they omitted to enter Rs.100/- in his account. The Secretary of the first opposite party appeared before the Taluk Legal Services Committee on 20.12.2018 and informed about the omission occurred on 28.09.2015 and assured to rectify the same. But again the first opposite party has not done anything. Hence, the complainant has filed the complaint before the District Consumer Forum seeking for a direction to the opposite parties claiming for refund of a sum of Rs.100/- which was wrongly omitted to be entered in his account, to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and hardship, Rs.3,500/- towards litigation expenses, Rs.500/- towards transportation charges and Rs.575/- towards other expenses.

4. The said case was resisted by the first opposite party by filing a written version stating that at the beginning the bank accounts were maintained manually in the note books and subsequently the same was computerized. At the time of computerizing the complainant’s account, due to the typographical error a mistake had occurred and Rs.100/- was omitted to be entered in the computer entry. The complainant lodged a complaint directly to the Taluk Legal Services Authority, Thirukkoilur and only on receipt of the intimation from the Taluk Legal Service Authority through notice they found the wrong entry made by the bank officials. The first opposite party had also given assurance that t