DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016.
Case No.52/2014
Sh. Praveen Kumar Mehta
S/o Late Sh. Guran Diwaya Mehta
R/o E-18, West Patel Nagar,
New Delhi-110008 ….Complainant
Versus
Axis Bank Ltd.
K-12, Green Park Main
New Delhi-110016 ……Opposite Party
Date of Institution : 06.02.14 Date of Order : 29.01.16
Coram:
Sh. N.K. Goel, President
Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member
O R D E R
Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that during last week of October, 2013 the representative of OP collected the details for opening salary bank account of the Complainant and got the form duly signed from the Complainant alongwith three photographs, self attested copy of the PAN and Passport and supplied to the Complainant the Insta Kit No.013242, Customer ID 849719278 for salary saving account No.913010034623769 and also issued Personal Identification Number (PIN), Cheque Book from S.No.756921 to 756930 and Debit Card (Axis Bank Prime Titanium Rewards). The Complainant was employee of Punj LIoyd Ltd. and the salary of the Complainant for October, 2013 and November, 2013 was remitted in his salary saving account. It is stated by the Complainant that there was a balance of Rs.2,46,730/- in his salary saving account as per the ATM transaction record taken from Royal Bank of Scotland. The Complainant deposited cheque No.756921 dated 13.01.14 for Rs.2,45,000/- in his own favour in the name of Praveen Kumar Mehta drawn on Axis Bank Ltd., Green Park Branch, New Delhi in State Bank of India, Jawahar Vyapaar Bhawan Branch, Janpath, New Delhi for crediting the same to his saving bank account No.31065676915 (SBI). However, the Complainant received a SMS from SBI on 16.01.14 stating that “cheque No.756921 for Rs.2,45,000/- deposited in account No. xxxxx676915 returned.” Having sufficient balance in his account, Complainant felt agreed with the returning of the cheque and met officials of OP to mitigate his hardship. The official of OP after assuaging the Complainant on telephonic conversations and correspondence as detailed in the complaint finally blamed the Complainant for having different names in different documents and also pointed out that the discrepancy in the name of the Complainant was detected by their audit team. The Complainant having failed to get redressal of his grievances has approached this Forum alleging deficiency in service by OP and filed the complaint with the following prayers:-
- Direct the OP to compensate the Complainant with the differential rate of interest @ 20% ( 24 minus 4) on the cheque amount of Rs.2,45,000/- for compensating his creditors as he could not pay them in time because of OP’s negligence,
- Direct the OP to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.1,51,000/- for the harassment, humiliation and mental agony caused to him for no fault of his,
- Direct the OP to reimburse him Rs.5,500/- per visit/hearing towards his salary/taxi charges for appearing on the date fixed from time to time to pursue the complaint
- Direct the OP to reimburse him Rs.5,300/- towards the cost of the filing of the complaint.
The OP has contested the claim of the Complainant on the grounds that the Complainant had submitted his identity card issued by M/s Punj LIoyd showing his name as P. K. Mehta which was rejected by their audit team and that is why the account of the Complainant was not activated due to lapse on the part of the Complainant himself. The OP has further stated that in the another account opening form filled by the complainant on the request of the OP the complainant has stated that “Declaration Form in which he has submitted that “ I Mr. Parveen Kumar Mehta state and declare that I am also known as P. K. Mehta and many of my official records bear my name as P.K. Mehta. I request you therefore to open the account with your bank on my aforesaid representation as per the form duly filled in by me and accept the documents furnished by me in support thereof. I agree to abide by all the terms and conditions of the bank as are applicable for the opening and operation of the said account. I state that without prejudice to the banks other right in law or under the terms and condition or otherwise. I shall be to pay damages and compensation to the bank, which may be incurred or suffered by the bank upon the bank opening the as requested by me relying on my above-said representation. It is stated as hereunder:-
“The same are annexed as Annexure-R-2 Colly. The complainant had submitted the above said forms on 28.1.2014 and immediately within next 2 working days the said account was got activated and was also informed to the complainant on phone. Furthermore the said Statement of account do not show any cheque return charges. This further shows that the account was not activated and only credits were reflected during the said period. The complainant in order to check the activation of his account withdrew a sum of Rs. 100/- from the ATM on 30.1.2014 as reflected in the Statement of account which is Annexure-R-1 hereto. This clearly shows that the complainant instead of extending the gratitude to the employees/officers of the OP-Axis Bank has filed this vexatious and frivolous complaint before this Hon’ble Forum.
..……………………
However, it is submitted that issuing of Insta Kit was subject to conformity of supporting documents with respect to account opening form as well as other terms and conditions applicable to opening of account.”
Denying deficiency in service, OP has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
Complainant has filed rejoinder to the written statement of OP.
In the rejoinder the Complainant has denied the signing of any Declaration Form as stated by the OP in the written statement and also denied that the Declaration Form bears his signature. The Complainant has also strongly asserted that there was no need to have his signature again on 28.01.14 as he had already signed the same in October, 2013 while opening the salary saving account.
Complainant has filed his own affidavit in evidence and affidavit of Sh. Rakesh Kathuria, Vice President & Branch Head has been filed in evidence on behalf of OP.
Written arguments have been filed on behalf of the parties.
We have heard the arguments on behalf of the Complainant and have also gone through the file very carefully.
We straightaway come to formulate a question as to why the cheque issued by the Complainant for Rs.2,45,000/- on 13.01.14 was dishonoured and whether there was any discrepancy in the name of the Complainant recorded in the account as well as in the cheque and also whether this transaction led to raising debit by creditors of Complainant, if any?
In order to arrive at the logical finding we have two vital pieces of evidence on the record i.e. cheque for Rs.2,45,000/- drawn in favour of Mr. Praveen Kumar Mehta vide cheque No.756921 drawn on Axis Bank Ltd. dated 13.01.14 (for identification we mark the document as Annexure-A) and an other saving bank account opening form dated 28.01.14 of OP indicating the full name of the Complainant as Parveen Kumar Mehta (for the identification we mark the document as Annexure-B).
When we compare both these documents marked as Annexure A & B, we are absolutely clear that the name of the Complainant is same in both these documents i.e. Parveen Kumar Mehta. Therefore, we do not see any reason to accept the plea taken by the OP that the account of the Complainant was not activated due to lapse on the part of the Complainant himself as detected by their audit team. We, therefore, hold that mental agony and harassment indeed had been caused to the Complainant owing to wrong stand of the OP in having different names. Though the Complainant has pleaded about crashing of his plan for returning of the cheque for Rs.2,45,000/- and compensating creditor, he has not proved any direct loss caused due to dishonoring of this cheque albeit non accrual of interest during the period, his account was inert.
We allow the complaint and direct the OP to pay Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) in lumpsum to the Complainant as compensation for causing him mental agony and harassment to the Complainant within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order failing which the OP shall become liable to pay simple interest @ 9% per annum for delay beyond period of 30 days from the date of filing of complaint till realization.
Let copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
Announced on 29.01.2016.
(NAINA BAKSHI) (N.K. GOEL) MEMBER PRESIDENT
Case No. 52/14
29.1.2016
Present – None.
Vide our separate order of even date pronounced, the complaint is allowed. OP is directed to pay Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) in lumpsum to the Complainant as compensation for causing him mental agony and harassment to the Complainant within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order failing which the OP shall become liable to pay simple interest @ 9% per annum for delay beyond period of 30 days from the date of filing of complaint till realization. Let the file be consigned to record room.
(NAINA BAKSHI) (N.K. GOEL) MEMBER PRESIDENT
