BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MOGA.<br /> <br /> Complaint No.47 of 2008<br /> Instituted On: 28.04.2008<br /> Date of Service: 23.05.2008<br /> Decided On: 24.07.2008<br /> <br /> <br /> Rajpreet Singh (aged 33 years) son of Sh.Rajinder Singh, resident of House No.563, Patti Wali Gali, Moga.<br /> <br /> Complainant.<br /> <br /> Versus<br /> <br /> 1. AXIS Bank, Zonal Office at Ashoka Tower, 8th Floor, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi through its Zonal Manager.<br /> <br /> 2. AXIS Bank, Branch Office at SCF 26-27, Opposite Gandhi Road, Ferozepur Road, Moga through its Branch Manager.<br /> <br /> Opposite Parties.<br /> <br /> Complaint under section 12 of The<br /> Consumer Protection Act, 1986.<br /> <br /> <br /> Quorum: Sh.J.S.Chawla, President,<br /> Smt.Bhupinder Kaur, Member.<br /> <br /> Present: Sh.Amandeep Singh, Advocate counsel for complainant. Sh.Varinder Kashyap, Advocate counsel for the OPs.<br /> <br /> (J.S.CHAWLA, PRESIDENT)<br /> Sh.Rajpreet Singh complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (herein-after referred to as ‘Act’) against AXIS Bank Limited, New Delhi through its Zonal Manager and another- opposite parties directing them to issue passbook in his favour showing deposit of Rs.5000/- by him; to refund the said amount of Rs.5000/- alongwith interest and also to pay him Rs.20000/- on account of compensation for causing mental tension and harassment.<br /> 2. Briefly stated, Rajpreet Singh complainant approached the OPs-AXIS Bank Limited, Moga (herein-after referred to as ‘Bank’) for opening his new account with them and for this purpose, he deposited Rs.5000/- with the Ops-Bank against temporary receipt no.15057 and advised him to take the passbook after 5-6 days. Thereafter, he further visited the office of OP2-Bank but they asked him to bring some person for identification and accordingly, the complainant came back accompanied with one Ravi Sharma resident of DSP Wali Gali, Moga for identification, but even then the OP2-Bank did not issue any passbook to him. That after so many visits, the OP2-Bank disclosed that they have converted his amount of Rs.5000/- in the account of some other client of the OP2-Bank. Thereafter, time and again the complainant visited the office of OPs-Bank and requested them to issue passbook in his favour showing deposit of Rs.5000/- by him and also to refund the said amount alongwith interest, but they refused to pay any heed to his requests. That the aforesaid act and conduct of the OPs-Bank amounts to deficiency in service. That the complainant has suffered mental tension and harassment for which he has claimed Rs.20000/- as compensation. Hence the present complaint.<br /> 3. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs-Bank. OPs-Bank appeared through Sh.Varinder Kashyap Advocate and filed written reply contesting the same. They took up preliminary objections that this Forum has got no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint as the complainant is not their ‘consumer’; that the complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands and concealed the true and hard facts from the knowledge of this Forum. The true facts are that one Ravi Sharma deposited Rs.5000/- on 28.3.2008 in the name of complainant for opening of his new account. It was also agreed by Ravi Sharma as well as complainant that they will fulfill all the terms and conditions of the OPs-Bank and will submit all the documents i.e. identity proof, ration card, age proof and PAN number for opening of new account. That neither Ravi Sharma nor the complainant ever completed the documents, so the account could not be opened. Thereafter, on the request of Ravi Sharma depositor, the sum of Rs.5000/- was transferred in his account on 4.4.2008. That Rajpreet Singh was neither the account holder nor the customer of the Ops-Bank and thus the present complaint filed by him is not maintainable. Moreover, there is no relationship of customer with bank with the complainant, so the complainant is not a ‘consumer’ of Ops-Bank. On merits, the Ops-Bank took up the same and similar pleas as taken up by them in the preliminary objections. All other allegations contained in the complaint were specifically denied being wrong and incorrect. Hence it was prayed that the complaint filed by the complainant has no merit and the same be dismissed.<br /> 4. In order to prove his case, the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.A1, credit slip Ex.A2 and closed his evidence.<br /> 5. To rebut the evidence of the complainant, the OPs-Bank tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.R1 of Hitesh Rawal, copy of statement of account Ex.R2, copy of voucher Ex.R3, copy of request letter Ex.R4 and closed their evidence.<br /> 6. We have heard the arguments of Sh.Amandeep Singh ld.counsel for the complainant and Sh.Varinder Kashyap ld.counsel for the OPs-Bank and have very carefully perused the evidence on the file.<br /> 7. Sh.Amandeep Singh ld.counsel for the complainant has mainly argued that the OPs-Bank has refused to issue passbook in favour of complainant showing the deposit of Rs.5000/- by him and also refused to refund the said amount alongwith interest and the same amounts to deficiency in service. This contention of the ld.counsel for the complainant has no force. Deposits slip Ex.R3 shows that an amount of Rs.5000/- was deposited by Ravi Sharma and not by Rajpreet Singh. However, the name of Rajpreet Singh son of Rajinder Singh is mentioned in one of the column of deposit receipt Ex.R3. The complainant has failed to produce any other document like account opening form, photograph, ration card and other documents, if any, submitted by him for opening bank account with Ops-Bank. Even the specimen signatures, if any, given by the complainant for opening bank account has neither been produced nor alleged by the complainant in his complaint. Deposit Receipt Ex.R3 is signed by Ravi Sharma and not by Rajpreet Singh. Thus, it shows that the amount of Rs.5000/- was deposited by Ravi Sharma and not by Rajpreet Singh complainant. Merely writing of his name on the pay-in-slip Ex.R3 is not sufficient to hold that the complainant had deposited the said amount of Rs.5000/-. As Ravi Sharma had his account with Ops-Bank, the Ops-Bank was justified in transferring the said amount of Rs.5000/- in his account no. no.516010100015057 as per his written request Ex.R4. In the said written request Ex.R4 Ravi Sharma specifically mentioned that he had deposited Rs.5000/- for opening the account of Rajpreet Singh, but Rajpreet Singh was not able to fulfill the required formalities as per bank guidelines, the amount of Rs.5000/-deposited by him may please be transferred in his account no. 516010100015057. On this application, the Ops-Bank was justified and well within their right to transfer the said amount in the said account of Ravi Sharma. Thus, the claim of Rs.5000/- of the complainant lies, if any, against Ravi Sharma and not against Ops-Bank.<br /> 8. The aforesaid evidence on the file show that the Ops-Bank had not opened any account in favour of Rajpreet Singh complainant nor Rajpreet Singh complainant had completed the requisite formalities as per the bank guidelines. He can not be termed as a ‘consumer’ of the Ops-Bank because there was no relationship of customer and bankers between the parties. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we therefore hold that the complainant has failed to prove that he had deposited Rs.5000/- with Ops-Bank for opening the account or is entitled to refund the same from the Ops-Bank.<br /> 9. To support the aforesaid contention, the OPs-Bank has produced the affidavit Ex.R1 of Hitesh Rawal, copy of statement of account Ex.R2, copy of voucher Ex.R3, copy of request letter Ex.R4. On the other hand, the affidavit of the complainant Ex.A1 and credit slip Ex.A2 produced by the complainant have no relevancy and can not be given any effect and we discard the same.<br /> 10. The ld.counsel for the parties did not urge or argue any other point before us.<br /> 11. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the complaint filed by the complainant has no merit and the same is dismissed. Keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.<br /> <br /> (Bhupinder Kaur) (J.S.Chawla)<br /> Member President<br /> <br /> Announced in Open Forum.<br /> Dated:24.07.2008. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />