S.Sankaran vs KARUR VYSYA BANK

THE Complainant appeals.

THE facts of the case have been expounded in detail in the order of the District Forum. We shall not restate them elaborately Further the points on which litigation arises are admitted. THE complainant who was having an account in the opposite party Bank requested the Manager thereof to attest his signature for the purpose of encashing a draft drawn on the Canara Bank. THE Manager refused to comply with his request. THEreupon he filed a complaint before the District Forum claiming compensation of Rs. 50,000/- as exemplary damages for hardship, mental agony and sufferings and loss sustained due to the refusal of the opposite party to identify the signature of the complainant. The District Forum after hearing both the parties, dismissed the complaint by order dated 27.9.93 against which this appeal is preferred.

The Complainant/Appellant appearing in person would urge that there was deficiency in service inasmuch as the identification of his signature was not effected by his banker, the opposite party. He would concede that there is no rule enjoining the banker to identify the signatures of their clients, but he would maintain that it is well accepted standard procedure, that no banker would refuse to identify the signatures of their clients. Therefore, he argued that the refusal of identification of his signature would amount to deficiency in service entitling him to the benefit of deficiency in service. We are unable to agree. Since deficiency is a matter which has been made justifiable under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, deficiency should be of such a nature that a person who would become guilty thereof could be or should have been fully aware before the action or omission. So for being a deficiency the action or omission of the bank should be such as it is against the bank rules. If a deviation from a practice is to be considered as deficiency, the problem will crop up to prove that the practice was so firmly established that every officer was necessarily aware thereof. So we cannot accept the departure from a practice as a deficiency within the meaning of the Act. Secondly, looking it from another angle a deficiency implies an obligation. If a favour which is usually extended is not forthcoming, one cannot complain of deficiency, he has to search for another bank. It is very difficult to hold that the refusal to identify signature which admittedly is not one of the obligation of the bank amounts to deficiency.

THERE is also another aspect in the grievance articulated by the Complainant/Appellant. A person to approach a Court, or a Tribunal or a Commission like the present one, should be substantially aggrieved. It is a well accepted principle of jurisprudence that a person should not rush to a judicial or a quasi-judicial forum on the slightest harm. The Court will not take cognizance thereof in application of the maxim "De minimis non curat lex". When the harm is so slight that no person of ordinary sense and temper would complain of such harm, the complaint is not maintainable. We find that the refusal to identify the signature, if at all it is a deficiency in service, would come within the category of such slight harm. The Appellant had already filed another case against the Canara Bank which insisted on the identification of the signature. That matter was dealt with by this Commission in Appeal No. 35/93. In that matter we have held that no damages were effectively sustained by the complainant on account of his inability to encash the draft in Canara Bank. Therefore, the refusal by Vysya Bank to identify his signatures for the purpose of encashing it in the Canara Bank did not cause any damage requiring compensation. We are even driven to consider that the complaint is a frivolous one which would entitle the opposite party to a Cost which could extend upto Rs. 10,000/-. But since the opposite party has not claimed cost we are not granting it.

IN the result, the appeal stands dismissed. Appeal dismissed.