Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

FA/218/2012

THE BRANCH MANAGER, STANDARD CHARTERED BANK - Complainant(s)

Versus

A. SHANMUGAVADIVEL - Opp.Party(s)

V.JAYACHANDRAN

23 Sep 2015

ORDER

 

BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CHENNAI

BEFORE :   THIRU.A.K.ANNAMALAI                          PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

                                                      TMT.P.BAKIYAVATHI                               MEMBER

                                                                                                F.A.NO.218/2012

(Against the order in CC.No.187/2010, dated 27.01.2011 on the file of DCDRF, Coimbatore)

DATED THIS THE 23^rd DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2015

The Branch Manager,

Standard Chartered Bank,

RS Puram Branch,                                                 M/s.V.Jayachandran

Coimbatore 641 002.                                Counsel for Appellant / Opposite party

                                      -vs-

Mr.A.Shanmugavadivel,

No.64, Meena Estate, 3^rd Block,                               M/s.G.B.Saravabhavan

Sowripalayam,                                          Counsel for Respondent / Complainant

Coimbatore -641 002.

          The Respondent is the complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite party praying certain relief.  The District Forum allowed the complaint.  Against the said order, the appellant / opposite party filed this appeal praying for to setaside the order of the District Forum in CC.No.187/2010, dated 27.01.2011.   

          This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 02.09.2015, upon hearing the arguments on both sides, perusing the documents, lower court records, and the order passed by the District Forum, this commission made the following order.

A.K.ANNAMALAI,  PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

          The opposite party is the appellant.

2.       The complainant having SB Account with a twin benefits to be operated as savings  account  as well as  fixed  account carrying  minimum 3.5% interest for the savings amount and 7% interest over and above a fixed amount available in the savings bank account during the year 2003.  At that time of opening of the account minimum balance to be maintained was Rs.5000/- and the complainant was having deposit of Rs.25,000/- maintaining onwards Rs.18,000/- as balance for which over and above Rs.5000/- he is entitled for 7% interest and thereafter during May 2009 he was having Rs.26,000/- in his account and issued cheque for Rs.12,500/- which was wrongly dishonoured by the opposite party and thereby alleging negligence and unfair trade practice.  After issuing legal notice on17.7.2009 filed a consumer complaint claiming refund of Rs.26,000/- with interest and to pay Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs.5000/- as costs.

3.       The appellant / opposite party denied the allegation contending that the earlier minimum balance for the saving bank was fixed at Rs.5000/- which was subsequently raised to Rs.25,000/- and the same was communicated to the complainant and since the complainant has not maintained the accounts for two years it was treated as non performance of account and when he was asked to furnish fresh requests for closing of account along with details for cheque leaves and the ATM card which was not complied and he had not furnished the details for returned the cheque since they are not able to trace out the records since 2000 January 9^th and the bank is ready to reverse the charges levied for non maintenance of over AQB of Rs.25,000/- and to close the account as requested and thereby there was no deficiency or unfair trade practice on their part.

4.       Based on both sides materials and after an enquiry the District Forum came to the conclusion that there was unfair trade practice on the side of the opposite party unnecessarily calling for documents from the complainant and allowed the complaint with direction to refund the amount of Rs.26,000/- with upto date interest and to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and to pay Rs.1000/- as costs.

5.       Aggrieved by the impugned order the opposite party filed this appeal contended that the District Forum erroneously allowed the complaint delay in complaint and regarding maintainability of minimum amount in the account for the purpose of Axcess plus savings accounts and since the complainant failed to maintain the account for a long time in order to revive the same certain particulars were called for and charges were collected which were reversed as a special case and the complainant failed to produce the return memo for the returned cheque so as to verify the details and without considering all the matters the District Forum allowed the complaint without any basis and thereby the appeal is to be allowed.

6.       We have heard both sides arguments and carefully considered the materials.  It is the admitted case of both sides that the complainant was having twin benefits Savings Bank account with the opposite party during the year 2003 and for the alleged non operation of the account the opposite party levied certain charges which  has  subsequently  accepted  to be rectified and the complainant having issued a cheque for Rs.12,500/- which was  wrongfully returned for which the opposite party failed to furnish the  documents alleging that the complainant has to give details to ascertain the wrongful dishonor on their side and further it is also alleged that the opposite party informed the complainant about the raising of minimum maintainable balance of Rs.25,000/- from Rs.5000/- in the year 2000;  but not proved the same by the opposite party with any document except to file the copy of Account of opening Form under Ex.B1 and copy of reply notice Ex.B2.  In those circumstances the District Forum observed as follows in its order in para 15, 16 and 17

          “Under Ex.A1, his legal notice dated 17.7.09, the complainant has requested their bank to close the account, citing the above deficiency in service.  Under Ex.A2, the Bank had sent a reply, inter alia, requesting the complainant to send another letter for closure of the account along with attested identity, signature, and address proof with a rider the letter of the complainant should stating that he is withdrawing the complaint against them. Para-15”.

          “In our view, the above demand of the bank is an unfair trade practice for the reason that the bank is having the documents called for from the complainant viz address proof which they have collected from him under Ex.B1 account opening form. Para-16”.

          “For the aforesaid reasons, we hold that the  opposite  parties  have  indulged  in unfair trade  practice and  committed deficiency in service causing loss of reputation, financial loss and mental agony to the complainant and he is, therefore, entitled to compensation and the refund of the savings bank account amount standing to his credit with interest.  Para-17.”

From these observations we are of the view that the opposite party had indulged in unfair trade practice and committed deficiency in service causing loss of reputation, financial loss and thereby the District Forum allowed the complaint with direction to refund Rs.26,000/- with upto date interest which findings we are in full agreement and as far as the compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- awarded towards mental agony for unfair trade practice and deficiency in service concerned by considering the facts and circumstances of the case and nature of the complaint we are of the view an award of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation is not proportionate to the facts of the case and we are inclined to reduce the same from Rs.1,00,000/- to Rs.30,000/- and in other respects confirming the order of the District Forum.  Accordingly

          In the result, the appeal is allowed in part by modifying the order of the District Forum by reducing from Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation to Rs.30,000/- and in other respects confirming the order of the District Forum.  No order as to costs in the appeal.

 

P.BAKIYAVATHI                                                             A.K.ANNAMALAI

     MEMBER                                                           PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

INDEX; YES / NO

VL/D;/.PJM;BANK