DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> Civil Station, Palakkad 678001, Kerala<br /> <br /> Dated this the 21st day of November, 2008<br /> <br /> Present: Smt.Seena.H, President<br /> Smt.Preetha.G.Nair, Member<br /> Smt.Bhanumathi.A.K, Member<br /> <br /> C.C.No.28/2007<br /> <br /> Krishnaleela,<br /> W/o.Ramadas,<br /> Parakkal House,<br /> Kongad, Palakkad. - Complainant<br /> (By Adv.John John)<br /> Vs<br /> <br /> Canara Bank,<br /> Rep by Senior Manager,<br /> Kongad.P.O,<br /> Palakkad. - Opposite party<br /> (By Adv.G.Ananthakrishnan & Gourishankar)<br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> By Smt.Preetha.G.Nair, Member<br /> <br /> <br /> The case of the complainant is as follows:<br /> <br /> The complainant had taken an NNND Account bearing No.7188 with the opposite party Bank. The said account was closed on 7.2.2006 and the amount in the said account was transferred to complainant's loan account No.DDN 3386. After closing the said loan account there was a balance of Rs.341/-. The complainant requested the opposite party to transfer the said amount of Rs.341/- to her SB Account No.16060 and sought an explanation from the opposite party as to why the said amount was kept without transferring. Then the complainant was surprised to received a reply from the opposite party stating that on closing account No.7188 the amount was credited to the complainant's A/c No.3386 to clear the loan amount and the balance amount of Rs.341/- was credited to her husband's loan Account No.3387 as per the oral request. The further case of the complainant is that she has not visited the opposite party bank and had not given any oral request to transfer the amount in her account to her husband's account No.3387. Hence the act of crediting the amount in A/c No.3387 is illegal and improper, and the said act amount to deficiency in service. Further the complainant issued a lawyer notice to the opposite party claiming compensation for loss, pain and mental agony and return of the above mentioned amount of Rs.341/- with interest. Then the opposite party issued the letter to the counsel of the complainant stated that the matter has been <br /> <br /> placed before the controlling office and further instructions from them awaited and requested the counsel to desist from taking any hasty steps. Instead of informing the instruction from the controlling office the opposite party sent another reply through their counsel, disputing and denying all the averments stated in the complainant's lawyer notice. The complainant submits that the opposite party is not having any definite case on the one hand they stated that they are waiting instruction from the controlling office to settle the matter, on the other hand they are disputing the case of complainant stating that the transfer has been made with the oral consent of the complainant. The act of the opposite party transferring the excess amount of Rs.341/- from her closed NNND Account to the account of her husband without her permission and consent will amount to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. The complainant has suffered mental agony, pain and suffering due to the act of the opposite party. So the complainant is claiming an amount of Rs.10,000/- as compensation from the opposite party for the pain and mental agony and to return Rs.341/- with 15% interest p.a till realisation.<br /> <br /> After admitting the complaint, notice was served to the opposite party for their appearance before the forum. Opposite party appeared and filed the version stating the following contentions.<br /> <br /> The complainant is a Savings Bank account holder in the opposite party bank, she had availed a loan of Rs.25,000/- she used to open NNND account once in 3 or 4 months and then instruct the bank to close the NNND account and credit the proceeds to loan account. Subsequently as per oral instructions NNND account was closed and the excess amount after closing loan account was transferred to her husband's account which they were well aware. According to the opposite party the complainant is estopped from raising false contentions of deficiency in service. All the alleged transactions in her SB Account and loan account were made only on the oral instructions of the complainant. The opposite party stated that the complainant is not a consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act. The main allegations of the opposite party is that the present complaint as filed is not maintainable before the forum. The complainant has not suffered any loss or mental agony as alleged and is not entitled for any damages or compensation and this opposite party bank has been unnecessarily dragged before the forum for reasons as stated above.<br /> <br /> Complainant as well as opposite party filed proof affidavits along with documents. Ext.A1 to A8 are marked on the side of the complainant. Ext.B1 to B5 are marked on the side of the opposite party bank. Matter heard.<br /> <br /> Issues to be decided are;<br /> 1. Whether the complainant is a consumer or not?<br /> 2. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite party?<br /> 3. If so, what is the relief and cost?<br /> <br /> Issue No.1: The opposite party stated that the complainant is not a consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act. Customers to whom services are rendered by the banks are consumers as service under Sec.2(o) specifically includes banking. Hence we hold the view that the complainant comes under the definition of consumer as defined in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. <br /> <br /> Issues No.2 & 3: We perused relevant documents on record. It is admitted that the complainant is having an NNND account bearing No.7188 with the opposite party bank and the said account was closed on 7.2.2006 and there was a balance of Rs.341/-. Ext.A7 is the letter dtd.3.11.2006 issued by the opposite party to the counsel of the complainant, therein the opposite party stated that the matter has been placed before the controlling office and further instruction is awaited and requested the counsel to desist from taking any hasty steps. Instead of informing the instruction from the controlling office the opposite party opted to sent another reply disputing and denying all the averments stated in the Ext.A4 notice.<br /> <br /> The opposite party bank transferring money to another person's account without customer's consent is deficiency in service. In order to create a banker's lien over several accounts they must belong to customer in the same capacity. In Branch Manager, Punjab National Bank Vs Shri.Gurmukh Singh III(1996)CPJ 432(HP)held that the general lien cannot be exercised by the bank on the Saving Bank account of the partner under his separate account for the balance due to the bank from the partnership firm and the amount lying in the separate account of the partner cannot be set off against the loan secured by the partnership firm. The same principle can be applied in the case also. Complainant stated that she had not visited the opposite party bank and had not given any oral request to transfer the excess amount in her account to her husband's account No.3387. Hence the act of crediting the amount in Account No.3387 is illegal and improper. Opposite party stating that on closing account No.7188 and the amount was credited to her account No.3386 to clear the loan amount and the balance amount of Rs.341/- was credited to her husband's loan account No.3387 as per the oral request. A Manager or Cashier of a bank are expected to have a reasonable degree of intelligence and knowledge ordinarily required of a person in his position to befit to discharge their duties. If that is not done, and the amount is disbursed to the third party, without issuing <br /> <br /> a notice, the fault lies with the bank. Hence the contention of the learned counsel for the bank that it is a matter of banking practice that funds can be transferred from one account to another on the basis of the authority given by the account holder have no substance in the present case.<br /> <br /> From the above circumstance, we are of the view that there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party bank which caused financial loss and mental agony to the complainant. Hence the complaint is allowed.<br /> <br /> In the above context, we direct the opposite party to pay Rs.341/- (Rupees Three hundred and forty one only) with 12% interest p.a and to pay Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) as compensation for pain and mental agony and Rs.500/- (Rupees Five hundred only) as cost. The aforesaid amount shall be paid within one month from the date of communication of this order failing which the whole amount shall carry 12% interest p.a from the date of order till realisation.<br /> <br /> Pronounced in the open court on this the 21st day of November, 2008 <br /> <br /> Sd/-<br /> Seena.H <br /> President<br /> <br /> Sd/-<br /> Preetha.G.Nair<br /> Member<br /> <br /> Sd/-<br /> Bhanumathi.A.K<br /> Member<br /> Appendix<br /> <br /> Exhibits marked on the side of complainant <br /> Ext.A1 – Copy of the letter sent by complainant to opposite party dtd.8.5.06<br /> Ext.A2 – Copy of reply of the letter dtd.25.5.06 (with objection)<br /> Ext.A3 – Letter sent by complainant dtd.21.6.06<br /> Ext.A4 – Copy of lawyer notice<br /> Ext.A5 – Postal receipt<br /> Ext.A6 – Postal acknowledgement<br /> Ext.A7 – Letter from Canara Bank to complainant dtd.3.11.06<br /> <br /> Exhibits marked on the side of opposite party <br /> Ext.B1 – Statement of accounts for the period from 1.2.05 to 30.3.07<br /> Ext.B2 – Statement of accounts for the period from 7.3.03 to 31.12.06<br /> Ext.B3 – statement of accounts from the period from 7.3.03 to 31.12.06<br /> Ext.B4 – Letter dtd.25.5.06 from opposite party to complainant <br /> Ext.B5 – Reply from complainant to opposite party <br /> Costs (allowed)<br /> Rs.500/- (Rupees Five hundred only) as cost<br />