BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MYSORE-570023

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.821/2015

DATED ON THIS THE 26^th May 2017

      Present:  1) Sri. H.M.Shivakumara Swamy

B.A., LLB., - PRESIDENT   

    2) Smt. M.V.Bharathi                    

                                   B.Sc., LLB., -  MEMBER

                     3) Sri. Devakumar.M.C.                  

                                                          B.E., LLB.,    - MEMBER

Sri DEVAKUMAR.M.C,

Member

1.     The complainant filed the complaint under section 12 of the C.P.Act 1986, against the opposite parties, alleging the deficiency of service and unfair trade practice and seeking a direction to refund Rs.2,012/-, illegally deducted from his savings bank account and to pay compensation of Rs.30,000/- towards the deficiency in service and inconvenience and mental agony caused, with such other reliefs.
2.    The complainant purchased a mobile handset, by availing loan from opposite party No.2.  He made down payment of Rs.12,320/- and promised to pay the balance amount of Rs.15,680/-, in 08 equal monthly instalments of Rs.1,960/- PM.  The first three instalment was paid in cash by the complainant and receipt of the amount was acknowledged by the opposite party No.2.  The remaining amount also paid promptly.  4^th and 5^th instalment was deducted through ECS from the S.B.Account of the complainant on 18.11.2015 and 05.12.2015.  On 02.09.2015 and 12.10.2015, the opposite party No.2 illegally deducted a sum of Rs.1,512/- and Rs.500/- respectively from the complainant’s S.B.Account.  On complaining the same to State Bank of India, informed that, the opposite party No.2 wrongly deducted the amount instead of deducting the same from the account of another person (i.e. Sri R.Guruprasad).  Accordingly, on enquiry the opposite party No.2 apologised the same and promised to refund the amount deducted, but failed to do so till filing of the complaint.  Alleging the same as illegal, deficiency in service and unfair trade practice by opposite parties, filed the complaint, seeking reliefs.
3.     The opposite parties filed the common version and denies the allegation as false.  The ops submits that, the complainant availed a loan of Rs.19,600/- and EMI to be paid was Rs.1,960/- for a period of 10 months.  The complainant had issued ECS mandate for repayment of the instalments.  The ops admitted that, due to inadvertent technical error in the system, the compainant’s account was mapped with some other person by name Mr.R.Guruprasad and a sum of Rs.1,512/- and Rs.500/- was deducted from complainant’s account.
4.     Later, on realising the error, Rs.1,512/- was refunded through RTGS on 16.12.2015 and Rs.500/- on 07.03.2016 and all the records corrected in the system.  As such, the allegation of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice is denied and contends the complaint is frivolous and vexatious and liable to be dismissed.
5.     To establish the facts, the complainant led evidence by filing affidavit and submitted several documents.  The opposite party No.1 filed affidavit and relied on documents.  Complainant filed written arguments and made oral submissions.  The opposite party neither filed written arguments nor address its arguments.  Perusing the material on record, matter posted for orders.
6.      The points arose for our consideration are:-

1. Whether the complainant establishes the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice by opposite parties for illegal deductions of amount from his savings bank account and thereby he is entitled for the same?
2.  What order?

7.    Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:

Point No.1 :- Partly in the affirmative.

Point No.2 :- As per final order for the following

:: R E A S O N S ::

8.    Point No.1:- The complainant issued ECS mandate for the repayment of loan amounts to opposite party No.2.  The EMI was paid promptly by the complainant.  Despite of the same, the opposite party No.2 deducted Rs.1,512/- on 02.09.2015 and Rs.500/- on 12.10.2015 from the complainant’s savings bank account. 
9.    The complainant’s bank informed that, the amount has been drawn by the ops. On lodging a complaint, the ops, got verified the records and realised the wrong deduction of amount from complainant’s account instead of another person’s account and sought apology for the same, with an assurance to refund the amount and set right the records.
10. The opposite party contended that they have refunded Rs.1,512/- through RTGS on 16.12.2015 and Rs.500/- on 07.03.2015 to the complainant and the records are corrected in the system.  Whereas in the additional affidavit filed by opposite party, states that, a sum of Rs.1,720/- (including interest at 12% p.a. for the period December 2015 to 06.07.2017) has been credited to the complainant’s account on 07.02.2017 via RTGS.
11. From the above, the complainant clearly established that, there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice by opposite parties.  So, we opine that, the opposite parties are liable to compensate the complainant for the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice committed by them.  Accordingly, point No.1 is answered partly in the affirmative.
12. Point No.2:- In view of the above observations, we proceed to pass the following

:: O R D E R ::

1. The complaint is allowed in part.
2. The opposite party Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally directed to pay Rs.5,000/- towards compensation for the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and Rs.2,000/- for the mental agony, in convenience caused and Rs.1,000/- towards cost of the proceedings to the complainant, within 60 days of this order.  In default to comply, the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally shall be liable to pay penalty of Rs.50/- per day until payment made.
3. In case of default to comply this order, the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 to undergo imprisonment and also liable for fine under section 27 of the C.P.Act, 1986.
4. Give the copies of this order to the parties, as per Rules.

(Dictated to the Stenographer transcribed, typed by her, transcript corrected by us and then pronounced in open court on this the 26^th May 2017)