CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,PALAKKAD

Dated this the 25^th July, 2016

PRESENT :  SMT. SHINY.P.R, PRESIDENT

               : SMT. SUMA. K.P, MEMBER                           Date  of filing : 10/3/2015

               : SRI. V.P.ANANTHA NARAYANAN , MEMBER      

CC/31/2015

Raghu Menon,

S/o.R.K.Menon,

Melekalam Estate, Cheraya Post,                        -                  Complainant

Kongad, Palakkad.

(By Adv.M.P.Ravi)    

Vs

Branch Manager,

ICICI Bank Ltd, Near Rappadi,                           -                  Opposite party

Palakkad.

(By Adv.M.Ramesh)

O R D E R

By Smt. Suma. K.P, Member,

The case of the complainant is that, he received an e-mail message intimating that he had awarded a lottery price money of Rs.4,81,93,800/- and       inorder to receive that amount the complainant has to remit an amount of Rs.80,000/- towards insurance  in the account number 630101513579 maintained with the opposite party.  On the basis of the above information the complainant deposited  Rs.80,000/- on 15/01/2015 in the above mentioned account which was in the name of Rohit Sing.  Then the complainant realized that the e-mail message was a fake one and it is sent to defraud the complainant.  So the complainant approached the opposite party and requested to freeze the account and returned the amount deposited by him.  The bank has not taken any action upon the complainant dated 15/1/2015 and has not returned the money.  The complainant alleges that the above act amounts to deficiency of service and hence the complainant had approached before this Forum claiming  refund of Rs.80,000/- and Rs.10,000/- towards damages. 

The opposite party entered appearance upon servicing notice and filed version contending that they cannot freeze the account without an order of the court or competent authority.  They admitted that complainant had deposited the amount and as per the  additional version they contended that the money was withdrawn from the account and they are helpless and hence the complaint has to be dismissed.  The complaint itself is not maintainable as the transaction between the complainant and the 3^rd party is not within the knowledge of opposite party and the transactions are purely of civil nature and it does not come within the jurisdiction of this forum.  Moreover the complainant is not a consumer as far this opposite party is concerned and does not come under section 2(d) of Consumer Protection Act and admittedly there is no element of consideration in the transaction. 

Evidence in this case consists of the affidavits of the complainant and the opposite party.  The complainant had produced 3 documents which was marked as Exts. A1-A3 and A3 is marked subject to proof.  The Branch Manager of the opposite party was cross examined as DW1 and the statement of the account of Rohit Singh was produced and marked as Ext.B1. 

The following issues are to be considered.

1. Whether the opposite party is liable to return the amount?
2. Whether there is any deficiency of service on their part?
3. If so, what are the reliefs and cost? 

 ISSUES

We had perused the documents as well as affidavit produced before the forum.  The deposit of Rs.80,000/- as revealed from Ext.A1 is admitted by the opposite party.  It is also obvious from Ext.A2 that the complainant had given the request to the opposite party for the return of money on 15/1/2015 i.e. the very same date.  But the opposite party have not taken any further steps in consequent to that letter.  Even when the DW1 was cross examined he had admitted that he had not given a written reply to Ext.A2. They had only verbally intimated the complainant that inorder to freeze an account an order from the competent authority is necessary.  The mere contention of the opposite party was that the complainant is not a consumer of this opposite party and there is no element of consideration.  The alleged transaction has taken place between the complainant and 3^rd party named Rohit Singh.  The complainant ought to have filed a criminal complaint since the nature of transaction involves criminal nature and the complainant had not initiated any legal proceedings either civil or criminal against the said Rohit Singh.  The 3^rd party Rohit Singh had withdrawn the above said amount from his account on 3/3/2015 as revealed from Ext.B1 account extract.  The submission of the complainant was that if the opposite party had acted upon the request (Ext.A2) given by the complainant, they could have return the money which they failed.  If an amount is mistakenly credited to the account it can be rectified and the opposite party has not cared to rectify the mistake inspite of the request made by the complainant.  This has resulted in huge financial loss to the complainant apart from the physical and mental agony for which the opposite party is liable to pay compensation.  The above act of the opposite party amounts to deficiency of service.  Even if for arguments sake, we believe the version of opposite party that they have verbally intimated the complainant that the account could not be freezed without an order of the competent authority, it is seen that the complainant has not initiated any legal proceedings against the Rohit Singh till 3/3/2015 on the date of withdrawal of the amount.  Being a public institution, the opposite party had a social obligation towards the  public  and could have given a written reply to Ext.A2 directing him to take appropriate legal proceedings against the Rohit Singh.  Without doing so, the opposite party has committed deficiency of service on their part.  Hence the complaint is allowed in part.

 Considering the facts and circumstance of this case   we direct the opposite party to pay Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three thousand only) as compensation for the mental  agony suffered by the complainant along with Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand only) as cost of this litigation.  The aforesaid amount shall be paid within one month from the date of receipt of this order failing which complainant is entitled to get 9% interest for the whole amount from the date of order till realization.

Pronounced in the open court on this the 25^th  day of July, 2016.

                                                                   Sd/-

                                                                    Shiny.P.R

                                                                     President

                                                                        Sd/-                                                                                                                     Suma. K.P

                                                                     Member

                                                                               Sd/-

                                                          V.P. Anantha Narayanan

                                                                   Member

A P P E N D I X

Exhibits marked on the side of complainant

Ext.A1 –Copy of Receipt dtd.15/01/2015

Ext.A2- Copy of letter dtd.15/1/2015 given to the ICICI Bank.

Ext.A3-Copy of E-mail message dtd.13/01/2015 (Subject to proof)

Witness marked on the side of complainant

Nil

Exhibits marked on the side of opposite party

Ext.B1 - Certified copy of statement of accounts dated 08/12/2015 regarding the A/c.No.630101513579

Witness examined on the side of opposite party

DW1- Prasad Kumar

Cost Allowed

Rs.2000/- as cost.