ORDER

BY SRI.H.R.SRINIVAS, PRESIDENT.

This is the Complaint filed by the Complainant U/S Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986, against the Opposite Party (herein referred in short as O.P) alleging the deficiency in service in remitting a sum of Rs.2,147.03 ps., on 15.11.2019 to the LIC of India without there being any instructions and also deducting Rs.3,182/- on 10.11.2020 from his S.B. Account without providing any details when enquired regarding the same and for refund of the said amount along with Rs.20,000/- as compensation and for other reliefs as the Commission deems fit.

2.      The brief facts of the complaint are that;

The complainant is a joint account holder of S.B. Account with SBI along with on S.S.Lakshmi.  On 15.11.2019 OP branch deducted a sum of Rs.2,147.03 ps., from his account and sent to LIC, Mumbai.  When enquired orally and also by giving complaint in writing, OP has just forwarded the same to DBS Wing, without settling the claim.  The matter was also brought to the notice of the higher authorities and inspite of it nothing has been ordered to revert back the said amount.  

3.      It is further contended that he had on online opened an RD account to deposit certain amount regularly for a period of 12 months. The bank generated the account number 2513190000039.  After its maturity an amount of Rs.96,669.22 ps., ought to have been credited to his account on 20.09.2020 whereas on request the same was credited to his account on 25.09.2020.  All of a sudden, on 10^th November 2020 after the lapse of 46 days from crediting the said amount a sum of Rs.3,182/- was debited from his account and on enquiry stated that “excess interest credited,” reversed without giving any information or detail as to how the said excess amount has been calculated.  Afterwards, the deposit group replied that “because of the bug in the system, system has credited excess interest, Apologies for the same. Whatever the system given excess that only has been debited, requesting you to check the maturity amount on pass book. We have debited excess interest amount and inconvenience caused is deeply regretted”.  As soon as same was brought to the notice, the same has taken up with the vendor for rectification hence it took some days. Kindly check the pass book.  Inspite of request to credit the said amount to his account, the same has not been done. Since the said deductions are without his consent and against to the amount which he is entitled to, according to him, it is deficiency in service and prayed the Commission to allow the complaint.

4.      Upon the service of notice, OP appeared before the Commission and filed its version contending that the complainant is the joint account holder of the account.  It has denied that inspite of repeated request and email it has not taken any decision. It has denied all the allegations made against to it, in each and every para of the complaint. Since it was a system based account opening, system itself mentions the amount to be paid on maturity, that they have produced the said document in that respect. They have recovered the excess interest credit reversed, without giving information or details to the complainant.  It is admitted that they have referred the matter to their vendors for rectification.  The complainant do not fall within the meaning of the consumer under the C.P. act. The claim of the complainant is unconscionable and with dishonest intention has made this complaint with figment of imagination. This is a pure case of abuse of the process of law, liable to be dismissed u/s 26 of the Act. Terming the complaint as wholly false, baseless, frivolous, vexatious and filed with malafide intention, indulging in malicious prosecution and speculative litigation to harass the OP, prayed the Commission to dismiss the complaint.

5.      In order to prove the case, both the parties filed their affidavit evidence and produced documents. Arguments Heard. The following points arise for our consideration:-

1) Whether the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties?

2) Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief prayed for in the complaint?

6.     Our answers to the above points are:-

POINT NO.1:            In the Affirmative

POINT NO.2:            Partly in the affirmative.

                                For the following.

REASONS

7.     POINT No.1:-

   Perused the complaint, version, affidavit evidence and the documents produced by respective parties.  It is not in dispute that the complaint is having S.B. Account with the OP. The bank statement produced dated 15.11.2019 reveals that a sum of Rs.2,147.03 ps., has been deducted from the account and the beneficiary is mentioned as LIC, Mumbai. It is for the OP to inform the customer account holder as to why the said amount has been deducted and to whom the same has been sent.  When the account holder seeks more particulars, it is also the duty of the OP to provide such information.  Op has no right to keep the customers in dark by not providing the information sought. The version filed by the OP when perused it has not at all stated anything about the facts and issues raised by the complainant.  Whereas, it is very bald and do not meet the case of the complainant at all. No explanation is offered by OP in respect of deduction of the said amount and also to which LIC branch of Mumbai the said amount has been credited.  When this act of OP is taken into consideration, it raises a doubt as to the genuineness of the transfer of the amount.

        8.     Coming to the allegation regarding deduction of Rs.3,182/- from his account, OP has not at all stating anything except stated that it is a system generated one and the system showed that excess amount has been credited to the account of the complainant and hence the same was recovered from the account of the complainant.  Though it is very easy to say the system generated operations, it is the person behind system who feeds the facts and materials to the system.  There cannot be a system without the assistance/help of a human being.  Even inspite of taking into consideration that it is a system generated one, when the complainant has made a complaint of deduction of the amount from the SB account in respect of the amount deposited from his R.D account, it is the bounden duty of the OP to inform the complainant as well as this Commission after filing of this complaint as to what was the installment of monthly deposits to be made in the account, what was the rate of interest agreed upon and what was the maturity value.

        9.     It is to be observed here that complainant opened an online account and there cannot be pass book issued by OP. If at all there was such a pass book in existence and given to the complainant it could have easily summoned the same or else OP could have produced the entire transaction account pertaining to the RD account of the complainant.

        10.   From the correspondences, it become clear that, after remitting Rs.96,669.20 ps., on 25.09.2020 on 10.11.2020, OP has debited Rs.3,182/- from his account.  According to OP it is the excess interest amount that was paid to the complainant which was recovered by way of debiting from his account. No material evidence has been placed by OP to show that there is excess interest calculated and paid. In view of this we are of the opinion that the OP is at fault and negligent enough to deduct a sum of Rs.2,147.03 ps., to the LIC and not furnishing the details of the LIC branch and the account which the said amount is sent and further without giving the calculation details as to how it arrived at the excess interest and deducting the same from the account of the complainant without giving any intimation or information amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Hence we answer point No.1 in the affirmative.

11.   POINT NO.2

        In the result OP is liable to pay Rs.2,147.03 ps., along with interest at 6% p.a., from 15.11.2019 till payment of the said amount and also refund Rs.3,182/- to the complainant along with interest at 6% p.a., from 10.11.2020 till payment of the entire amount along with litigation expenses of Rs.5,000/- and damages of Rs.5,000/- for causing mental agony and hardship. Hence we answer point No.2 partly in the affirmative and pass the following;

ORDER

1. Complaint is allowed in part with cost.
2. OPs are directed to pay Rs.2,147.03 ps., along with interest at 6% p.a., from 15.11.2019 till payment of the said amount and also Rs.3,182/- to the complainant along with interest at 6% p.a., from 10.11.2020 till payment of the entire amount.
3. OPs are further directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses and Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony and hardship.
4. The OPs are further directed comply the above order within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order and submit the compliance report to this Commission within 15 days thereafter.
5. Send a copy of this order to both parties free of cost.

Note:You are hereby directed to take back the extra copies of the Complaints/version, documents and records filed by you within one month from the date of receipt of this order failing which the same will be weeded out/destroyed.

(Dictated to the Stenographer over the computer, typed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Forum on this 02^nd  DAY OF DECEMBER 2021)

MEMBER                                PRESIDENT

ANNEXURES

1. Witness examined on behalf of the Complainant/s by way of affidavit:

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Complainant/s:

Ex P1: The letter written to the Chief Manager, the General on 06.05.2020, 18.06.2020, 11.11.2020, Notice on 23.11.2020

Ex P2: Email correspondences

2. Witness examined on behalf of the Opposite party/s by way of affidavit:

• NIL -

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Opposite Party/s

• NIL –

MEMBER                                        PRESIDENT

HAV*