Sri M.C.DEVAKUMAR,

Member

1.  The Complainant has filed the complaint Under Section 12 of the C.P.Act 1986, against the opposite party bank alleging deficiency in service  for blocking his SB account and seeking compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- for the improper service and for causing mental agony, inconvenience and Rs. 50,000/- towards cost of the proceedings with such other reliefs.

2. The complainant a pensioner and SB account holder with opposite party Bank  getting pension regularly submits that his transaction was blocked by opposite party no.1 from 01.04.2019 to 31.01.2019, without any reasons. On seeking clarifications the opposite party no.1 Branch Manager, misbehaved and caused mental agony, which resulted in pre closer of the loan account  with the branch. Further , he got blocked his ATM card for having incurred loss of Rs. 900/- by a fraudster and requested for new ATM card, which was not  issued by opposite party,  despite several follow ups. Hence alleged deficiency in service and filed the complaint.

3. The opposite party representative filed its version and denied the allegation as false and baseless. The complainant has already filed another complaint bearing no. CC 25/2019 before this Commission, against the Bank on the same cause of action, thereby the complaint is hit by law of Resjudicata and liable to be dismissed in liminae. Further, the complainant has not turned up to the Bank after closing   his account, as such, denial to issue new ATM Card and returning of original PPO and Five blank  security  cheques does not arise. For the loss of Rs. 900/- tricked by the fraudster by using complainant’s ATM card, the complainant is at liberty to file complaint before the jurisdictional police, not before this Commission. Hence, the opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

4. To prove the facts, both parties filed their respective affidavit evidence with several documents and also filed written arguments. Heard the oral arguments of both side and on perusal the material and documents, matter posted for orders.

5.      The points that would arise for our consideration are as
6. 1. Whether the complainant establishes the deficiency in service by the opposite party bank and thereby he is entitled for the reliefs?
   2. What order? 

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

      Point No.1:- In the Negative

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

:: R E A S O N S ::

7.     Point No.1:- The complainant, aged about 69 years, drawing his pension through SB account with opposite party no.1 Branch, He borrowed OD loan from opposite party Bank and the EMI amount was debited through his SB account. When such been the case, the opposite party Bank had withheld the transaction of his account  from 04.01.2019 to 31.01.2019, without any reasons, and failure to issue new ATM card and return of five blank cheques deposited with opposite party Bank, has been alleged as deficiency in service by opposite party Bank, hence the complaint.

8. The opposite party representative contended that, the complainant had borrowed personal overdraft facility to pensioner, repayable in monthly basis from his SB account No.1527622766 and the same is evidenced in the statement of account. The complainant was not maintaining sufficient balance in his account for payment of installment for his OD loan account, as the same was transferred from his SB account. As such, the self debit voucher for Rs. 6,500/- was with held. Further, the allegations levelled against the Bank officials is not condonable. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

9. On perusal of the evidence and the material documents, the Commission found that, the complainant was a pensioner and holding an SB account with opposite party Bank had borrowed OD loan and accepted to repay the loan through his SB account. The complainant ought to have maintained sufficient balance in his account in order to debit the EMI amount to the loan account. Since the complainant was not maintaining sufficient balance in his SB account to transfer the same to his loan account, the opposite party Bank had with held the self debit voucher for a sum of Rs. 6,500/- and prevented transactions for the period  between 04.01.2019 to 31.01.2019. In view of the above observations, this Commission opined that, there is no deficiency in service by the opposite party Bank and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the point no.1 is answered in the negative.

10.     Point no.2:- In view of the above observations, the complaint filed by Sri.Muralidhara D.N., deserves to be dismissed. Hence the following ;

:: ORDER ::

1. The complaint is hereby dismissed.
2. Furnish the copy of order to the complainant at free of cost.

(Dictated to the Stenographer transcribed, typed by her, corrected by us and then pronounced in open Forum on this the   07^th August, 2020)