DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PALAKKAD
Dated this the 22nd day of January 2009.
Present : Smt. H. Seena, President : Smt. Preetha G. Nair, Member : Smt. Bhanumathi.A.K, Member
C.C.No.29/2007
Ramadas S/o. Late K.G. Nair Parakkal House Kongad, Palakkad. - Complainant (By Adv.John John) V/s
Canara Bank Rep. By its Senior Manager Kongad (P.O), Palakkad. - Opposite party (Adv.Gowri Sankar & G.Ananthakrishnan)
O R D E R By Smt.Preetha.G. Nair, Member
The facts of the complaint in brief are as follows: 2. It is a case of the complainant that since 1986 onwards, the complainant is having an account bearing No.8828 with the opposite party bank. The complainant issued a cheque drawn on the above account to Sri. Chamikutty. Thereafter the cheque on presentation by Chamikutty was dishonoured for the reason insufficient fund. Then the complainant contacted the Opposite party and made enquiry regarding the reason for dishonour. Then the complainant came to know that an amount of Rs.797/- was withdrawn from his account without his knowledge and consent, and credited to his loan account No.3387. But the Opposite party had not intimated him regarding the balance due in his loan account and due date for the payment of the same. Further case of the complainant is that the dishonour of the cheque issued to Chamikutty for want of funds created an impression that the complainant purposefully issued the cheque for cheating Chamikutty. . The above incident caused much pain and mental agony to him and it resulted lowering his status in
- 2 - the estimation of others. The complainant issued a letter on 22.05.2006 stating all his grievances and claiming compensation. The Opposite party sent a reply stating falsehood. On 30.10.2006 the complainant issued a lawyer notice to the Opposite party claiming compensation for loss, pain and mental agony. They sent a reply notice stating false allegations.
3. This amounts to deficiency in service and filed the above complaint seeking direction to the Opposite party to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation for his pain and mental agony.
4.After admitting the complaint notice was served on the Opposite party. Opposite party appeared through their counsel and filed version admitting that the complainant is maintaining an SB account bearing No.8828 with the Opposite Bank and had availed a loan No.3387 of Rs.25,000/- on 07.03.2003. Also admitted that the loan has to be repaid in 34 monthly instalments of Rs.730/- and the last instalment at Rs.180/-. Further the Opposite party stated that the first of such instalment fell due in April 2003. The complainant was not regular in the repayment to NNND Account (New Nithya Nidhi Account) with this Opposite party. On 10.02.2006 the complainant's wife orally instructed to transfer the surplus amount of Rs.341/- in her loan account No.3386 to the loan account of complainant . Later on 21.04.2006, the complainant remitted Rs.1,000/- in the loan account and Rs.3,000/- in the SB account and he stated that the loan can be closed by debiting the balance required from his SB account. Thereafter the Opposite party debited Rs.797/- in the complainant's loan account. The Opposite party argued that the complainant is not a consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act. The Opposite party stated that the complainant has filed this complaint and has intimated his wife to file another complaint since the Opposite party Bank did not grant credit facility of Rs.1,00,000/- without any security. And the complainant's intention is to harass the Opposite party and make them agree to grant such a loan, which is against banking principles. Opposite party stated that the complainant has not suffered any loss or mental agony as alleged and is not entitled for any damages or compensation and the Opposite party has been unnecessarily dragged before the Forum and prayed for dismissal of the complaint. - 3 - 5. Complainant as well as Opposite party filed proof affidavit along with documents. Exhibit A1 to A8 are marked on the side of the complainant. Exhibit B1 to B6 are marked on the side of the Opposite party. Matter was heard.
6. On perusing the pleadings of both the parties that the points arise for our consideration are as follows:- Whether the complainant is a Consumer or not? Whether the complainant has proved the deficiency in service? What is the relief and cost?
7. We have heard the arguments and perused the pleadings, documents and evidence placed on record by the respective parties and answer the points as follows.
8. Point No. I: 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 (1)(o) specifically includes banking. Hence we hold the view that the complainant is a consumer under the definition of Consumer under the Consumer Protection Act.
9 .Point No. 2 & 3: It is admitted that the complainant had applied a loan of Rs.25,000/- from the opposite party Bank. The loan was overdue during February 2006. The complainant issued a cheque drawn on the account to Chamikutty. The cheque on presentment by Chamikutty was dishonoured for the reason “insufficient funds”. In order to prove the case of the Opposite party, the opposite party produced Exhibit B6 i.e, the agreement deed of hypothecation dated 07.03.2003 executed by the complainant stated that the Opposite party had the right to debit the due amount in his A/c No.8828 . Hence we hold the view that there is no deficiency on the part of the Opposite party for debiting Rs.797/- in the complainant's SB Account and closing the loan account. In the light of the facts set forth above we cannot attribute deficiency of service on the part of Opposite party.
- 4 - 10. However the complainant stated that the Bank has acted without notice to him. Therefore deficiency in rendering service. The case of the Opposite party Bank was that the complainant had entered into cash credit. Agreement with the Bank wherein the complainant has agreed the right of the Bank to apply any other money or moneys in its hand towards the payment of any amount due towards the Bank and therefore Opposite party rightly appropriated the amount from the SB account of the complainant towards the cash credit account. In Purushotram Nagar V Zonal Manger UCO Bank Jaipur 1993 CPJ 131, State Bank of India V M/s. Agarwal Karagency I 1996 CPJ 250 (NC) National Commission held that the Bank had a lien under the contract act as well as under the agreement upon the amount and therefore it appropriated that amount towards its dues. We have not been able to understand under which provision of law the Bank was bound to give notice to the complainant before exercising its right of lien.
11. The complaint is devoid of any merits. In the result complaint is dismissed without any costs.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 22nd day of January 2009.
President (SD)
Member (SD)
Member (SD)
- 5 - Appendix Exhibits marked on the side of complainant Ext.A1 – Letter issued by complainant dt.3/5/06 to opposite party Ext.A2 – Reply by opposite party dt.22/5/06 Ext.A3 – Letter sent by complainant dt.21/6/06 Ext.A4 – Copy of lawyer notice Ext.A5 – Postal receipt Ext.A6 – Postal acknowledgement Ext.A7 – Letter from Canara Bank to complainant dt.3/11/06 Ext.A8 – Reply notice Exhibits marked on the side of opposite party Ext.B1 ( 3 pages) Statement of account for the period from ½/05 to 30/3/07 Ext.B2 – Statement of Account Ext.B3 – Statement of account Ext.B4 – Letter dt.22/5/06 to complainant Ext.B5 – Reply notice of complainant dt.30/10/06 Ext.B6 – Deed of hypothecation dt.7/3/03
Forwarded/By Order
Senior Superintendent
......................Smt.Bhanumathi.A.K
......................Smt.Preetha.G.Nair
......................Smt.Seena.H | | 
