BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no.129 of 2016 Date of Institution : 19.5.2016
Date of Decision : 08.05.2017.
Hemant Mehta aged about 31 years son of Shri Ishwer Chand Mehta, resident of Delhi Pul, Hisar Road, Khaipur, Sirsa, Tehsil and District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. Axis Bank, Sirsa, through its Branch Manager Sandeep Batra.
2. Alisha, Representative, Max Insurance Company, Sirsa, Axis Bank, Sirsa.
3. Sandeep Batra, Manager, Axis Bank, Sirsa, Tehsil and District Sirsa.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SH. RAGHBIR SINGH…………………PRESIDENT
SMT.RAJNI GOYAT ……….. ……MEMBER.
SH. MOHINDER PAUL RATHEE…… MEMBER
Present: Sh. R.S. Bhaker, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. M.S. Sethi, Advocate for opposite parties.
ORDER
Case of complainant, in brief is that he is an account holder in op no.1 bank vide account No.914010001436643 under customer ID No.851224686 and he has been maintaining this account in the aforesaid bank since last several years. On 10.2.2016, he visited the bank where op no.2 met him and introduced herself to be the representative of op no.2 and tried to convince him to purchase the insurance policy but the complainant being uninterested did not show any interest regarding purchase of any such policy. However, the op no.2 obtained his signatures on some papers saying that she being the representative of insurance company is duty bound to obtain signatures of each and every person she met in this regard otherwise her duty will not be considered to be discharged honestly and complainant believing upon her version signed the same. On 18.2.2016, he received a text on his mobile number vide which it was informed that an amount of Rs.80,000/- has been deducted from his aforesaid bank account and on receipt of the same, he visited the bank on the next day and contacted with op no.3. On being contacted, it was brought to his knowledge by op no.3 that the aforesaid amount of Rs.80,000/- has been deducted from his account for purchase of insurance policy from Max Insurance Company. The complainant was shocked to hear this and made the op no.3 aware that he never purchased any policy from any such insurance company and he had only signed document shown by op no.2 under good faith. But the op no.3 instead of assisting the complainant, started threatening him and putting pressure upon him to keep the insurance policy silently. That from the act and conduct on the part of ops No.2 &3, it is evident that they are in active collusion with each other and have been fraudulently grabbing huge amounts from the account holders of the bank by obtaining their signatures under good faith. This act of ops amounts to fraud and professional misconduct. It is further averred that on the refusal of op no.3 to refund the aforesaid amount to his account, the complainant on 23.2.2016 moved an application to the Superintendent of Police Sirsa with a request to get investigated the matter and for taking necessary action against the ops. Then the op no.3 refunded the aforesaid amount of Rs.80,000/- in his account on 24.2.2016. In this manner, the said amount was retained by the ops illegally whereas they have got no legal right to keep the same with them, therefore, he is also entitled to the interest at the rate prevalent in the market from 18.2.2016 to 24.2.2016. The complainant approached the op no.3 and requested him to pay interest and also compensation but op no.3 kept on avoiding the matter on one false pretext or the other and now about two days ago he has flatly refused to pay the same to the complainant. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, opposite parties appeared and filed joint written statement submitting therein that complainant visited the bank on 18.12.2016 and met with op no.1 Bank for operating his account. He discussed with ops no.1 & 2 regarding the insurance policies but op no.1 and 3 had advised him to contact with op no.2. The complainant after understanding all the terms and conditions and admitting the same as true and correct had submitted the application. Then he signed the Debit voucher of Rs.80,000/- to debit his account for payment of insurance premium to insurance company. In this way, insurance of the complainant was done at his request and not by the bank official at their own level. It is further submitted that in fact, the complainant had been told the true position by the bank authorities. The complainant requested the op no.2 on 24.2.2016 that his family is not interested for said insurance then bank authorities credited his account accordingly for the amount of Rs.80,000/-. It is wrong and denied that the complainant had signed the insurance documents under good faith. Infact, all the relevant documents had been signed by the complainant after understanding the contents of the same as true and correct. All other remaining contents of the complaint have also been denied.
3. In evidence, complainant produced his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, statement of account Ex.C1 and copy of application dated 23.2.2016 Ex.C2. On the other hand, ops produced affidavit of op no.3 as Ex.R1, affidavit of op no.2 Ex.R2, voucher of Rs.80,000/- Ex.R3, proposal form Ex.R4, Nationalized Electronic Funds Transfer-Mandate Form Ex.R5 and statement of account Ex.R6.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.
5. The opposite parties have placed on file Mandate Form Ex.R5 dated 18.2.2016 to show that amount of Rs.80,000/- was debited from the account of complainant as per mandate of the complainant and mandate form bears the signatures of the complainant. But the question arises that when the mandate form bears the signatures of the complainant then why the ops have cancelled the same and there is no request of cancellation of mandate form from the side of complainant placed on file. At the same time, the debit voucher of Rs.80,000/- dated 18.2.2016 Ex.R3 bears the signatures of Hemant i.e. complainant. The complainant is a literate person and it cannot be said that he does not know the documents like debit voucher, so the version of the complainant that ops obtained his signatures on some documents under good faith cannot be believed. The ops have already refunded the amount of Rs.80,000/- in the account of the complainant on 24.2.2016. This fact is evident from the statement of account. But the ops No.1 and 3 debited an amount of Rs.114.50/- as charges for cancellation of DD which is not justified and there is no request from the side of complainant to cancel the DD or any other supporting document is placed on file to justify the said charges. Even no request for cancellation of mandate form has been obtained from the complainant. As such, the complainant is entitled to refund of Rs.114.50/- alongwith interest of six days on the amount of Rs.80,000/- as per existing rate of interest on saving account and is also entitled to amount of compensation as the bank authorities have deducted the charges without any justification and there is nothing on record to show any request of complainant to cancel his mandate form and DD etc.
6. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, we allow the present complaint and direct the opposite parties No.1 and 3 to refund the amount of Rs.114.50/- alongwith interest of six days i.e. from 18.2.2016 to 24.2.2016 on the amount of Rs.80,000/- as per existing rate of interest on saving account and also direct ops no.1 and 3 to pay a sum of Rs.4000/- as compensation to the complainant including litigation expenses within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the complainant will be entitled to further interest @9% per annum on the above said amounts from the date of filing of present complaint i.e. 19.5.2016 till actual realization. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated: 8.5.2017. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
Member. Member
